Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

Amendment No. 1

to

FORM 10

GENERAL FORM FOR REGISTRATION OF SECURITIES

Pursuant to Section 12(b) or (g) of

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934

MRI Interventions, Inc.

One Commerce Square, Suite 2550

Memphis, TN 38103

(Address of principal executive offices)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (901) 522-9300

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

Securities to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common Stock, $0.01 par value per share

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Table of Contents

EXPLANATORY NOTE

MRI Interventions, Inc. is filing this General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10, or this registration statement, to register its common stock, par value $0.01 per share, pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Unless otherwise mentioned or unless the context requires otherwise, when used in this registration statement, the terms “company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to MRI Interventions, Inc.

We were incorporated in Delaware in 1998 under the name Surgi-Vision, Inc. On November 12, 2008, we changed our name to SurgiVision, Inc. On May 13, 2011, we changed our name to MRI Interventions, Inc. We operate in only one business segment. Our principal executive office is located at One Commerce Square, Suite 2550, Memphis, TN 38103, and our telephone number is (901) 522-9300. Our principal operations are located in Irvine, California. Our website address is www.mriinterventions.com. We do not incorporate the information on our website into this registration statement, and you should not consider it part of this registration statement.

ClearConnect™ , ClearPoint ^® , ClearTrace™, MRI Interventions™, SmartFlow™, SmartFrame ^® , and SmartGrid ^® are trademarks of MRI Interventions, Inc. Any other trademarks, trade names or service marks referred to in this registration statement are the property of their respective owners. As used in this registration statement, Siemens refers to Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Healthcare Sector, Boston Scientific refers to Boston Scientific Corporation and its affiliates, and Brainlab refers to Brainlab AG.

The market data and other statistical information contained in this registration statement are based on independent industry publications, government publications, reports by market research firms and other published independent sources. Some data is also based on our good faith estimates, which are derived from other relevant statistical information, as well as the independent sources listed above. Although we believe these sources are reliable, we have not independently verified the information.

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

This registration statement contains forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements are contained principally in the sections entitled “Business”, “Risk Factors,” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performances or achievements, expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “could,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “may,” “plans,” “potential,” “predicts,” “projects,” “should,” “will,” “would,” and similar expressions intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. Although we believe that we have a reasonable basis for each forward-looking statement contained in this registration statement, we caution you that these statements are based on a combination of facts and factors currently known by us and our projections of the future, about which we cannot be certain.

2

Table of Contents

You should refer to the section of this registration statement entitled “Risk Factors” for a discussion of important factors that may cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by our forward-looking statements. As a result of these factors, we cannot assure you that the forward-looking statements in this registration statement will prove to be accurate. Furthermore, if our forward-looking statements prove to be inaccurate, the inaccuracy may be material. In light of the significant uncertainties in these forward-looking statements, you should not regard these statements as a representation or warranty by us or any other person that we will achieve our objectives and plans in any specified time frame, or at all. We do not undertake to update any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this registration statement, except to the extent required by applicable securities laws.

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a medical device company that develops and commercializes innovative platforms for performing minimally invasive surgical procedures in the brain and heart under direct, intra-procedural magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, guidance. Since our inception in 1998, we have focused on research and product development in the field of interventional MRI. From 1998 to 2002, we deployed significant resources to fund our efforts to develop the foundational capabilities for enabling MRI-guided interventions and to build an intellectual property position. In 2003, our focus shifted to identifying and building out commercial applications for the technologies we developed in prior years.

We have two product platforms. Our ClearPoint system, which is in commercial use in the United States, is used to perform minimally invasive surgical procedures in the brain. We anticipate that the ClearTrace system, which is still in development, will be used to perform minimally invasive surgical procedures in the heart. Both systems utilize intra-procedural magnetic resonance imaging to guide the procedures. Both systems are designed to work in a hospital’s existing MRI suite.

Our products are designed to provide a new, minimally invasive surgical approach to address large patient populations for whom we believe current surgical techniques are deficient. Our ClearPoint system is designed to deliver therapies to treat certain neurological diseases. Our ClearTrace system is designed to deliver therapies to treat certain cardiac diseases. We believe that our two product platforms, subject to appropriate regulatory clearance and approval, will provide better patient outcomes, enhance revenue potential for both physicians and hospitals, and reduce costs to the healthcare system.

3

Table of Contents

Our ClearPoint system is in commercial use. In June 2010, we received 510(k) clearance from the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, to market our ClearPoint system in the United States for general neurological interventional procedures. In February 2011, we also obtained CE marking approval for the ClearPoint system, which enables us to sell the ClearPoint system in the European Union. In April 2011, we entered into a co-development and distribution agreement with Brainlab, a leader in the image-guided surgery field, under which Brainlab will serve as our distribution partner for the ClearPoint system. As of January 31, 2012, a total of 14 ClearPoint systems have been installed, 13 in the United States and one in Europe. ClearPoint systems are in clinical use in connection with MRI scanners from the three major MRI scanner manufacturers, Siemens, GE Healthcare and Philips Healthcare, as well as the two major interventional MR/OR platforms that are manufactured by IMRIS and Brainlab.

The ClearTrace system, a product candidate still in development, is designed to allow catheter-based minimally invasive procedures in the heart to be performed using continuous, intra-procedural MRI guidance. In May 2009, we entered into an exclusive co-development agreement with Siemens for the development and commercialization of the hardware and MRI software necessary for the ClearTrace system. We believe that our exclusive relationship with Siemens secures an important strategic market position for the ClearTrace system. Our development activities on the ClearTrace system are ongoing. We have not made any filings seeking regulatory clearance or approval for the ClearTrace system. We anticipate that the initial market for the ClearTrace system will be the European Union.

In addition to our strategic relationships with Brainlab and Siemens, we also have entered into exclusive licensing and development agreements with Boston Scientific, pursuant to which Boston Scientific may incorporate certain of our technologies into its cardiac pacemaker and neuromodulation products. To augment our research and development activities, we also have meaningful collaborations with renowned academic institutions.

We have a significant intellectual property portfolio in the field of MRI-guided interventions. As of January 31, 2012, our portfolio included 63 patents and 113 patent applications, both United States and foreign, which we wholly-own, co-own or have licensed. Our technologies have been the subject of numerous peer-reviewed articles in medical and scientific journals. As a result of our product offerings, intellectual property position and collaborative relationships, we believe that we are well positioned to remain on the forefront of the emerging market for MRI-guided minimally invasive surgical procedures.

Industry Background

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

MRI is a widely practiced imaging technique that uses spatially varying magnetic fields to produce images of the human anatomy. Hydrogen nuclei, present in molecules throughout the body, are slightly magnetic. When placed in large external magnetic fields, they can be induced to emit or resonate radio frequency signals. These radio frequency signals are used to construct images of human anatomy, including high resolution images of soft tissue.

MRI has important and advantageous properties that differentiate it from other imaging methods. MRI scans can provide images of any part of the body, in any plane of view, and offer more detailed information than other modalities, including fluoroscopy and computed tomography. Some of the unique advantages of MRI include:

4

Table of Contents

There are approximately 4,500 1.5T MRI scanners and approximately 550 3T MRI scanners installed in hospitals throughout the United States. MRI scanners are available in a number of different configurations and field strengths, which refers to the strength of the magnet used to create the magnetic field. Magnetic field strength is measured in Tesla, or T. The most common field strength for MRI scanners is 1.5T. Higher field strength scanners such as 3T MRI scanners have been introduced in clinical practice and are gaining commercial market adoption, offering faster scanner speeds and even higher resolution images than 1.5T MRI scanners.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures

Over the past few decades, one of the most significant medical trends has been the development of minimally invasive surgical methods and techniques. As its name implies, a minimally invasive procedure is a less invasive approach than open surgery. Minimally invasive procedures typically involve use of laparoscopic devices, catheter-based devices or remote-control manipulation of instruments once inside the body. Minimally invasive procedures in the brain have typically been performed using a complex technique known as stereotactic neurosurgery, under which a physician merges pre-operative images and data with specialized surgical instruments to help guide the surgical procedure in the brain.

Our Current Products and Product Candidates

ClearPoint Neuro Intervention System

General

Our ClearPoint system is designed to allow minimally invasive procedures in the brain to be performed in a hospital’s existing MRI suite. The ClearPoint system provides guidance for the placement and operation of instruments or devices during the planning and operation of neurological procedures performed within the MRI suite using MR imaging. Our ClearPoint system is intended to be used as an integral part of procedures, such as biopsies and the insertion of catheters and electrodes, which have traditionally been performed using stereotactic methods. Our ClearPoint system is intended to be used with both 1.5T and 3T MRI scanners. Our research efforts for our ClearPoint system began in 2003. In June 2010, we received 510(k) clearance from the FDA to market our ClearPoint system in the United States for general neurological interventional procedures. In February 2011, we also obtained CE marking approval for our ClearPoint system. The CE mark is an international symbol of adherence to quality assurance standards and compliance with applicable European Union medical device directives, and it allows us to market the ClearPoint system in the European Union.

The first patient procedure using our ClearPoint system was performed by physicians at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center in August 2010. As of January 31, 2012, a total of 14 ClearPoint systems have been installed, 13 in the United States and one in Europe. ClearPoint systems are in clinical use in connection with MRI scanners from the three major MRI scanner manufacturers, Siemens, GE Healthcare and Philips Healthcare. Likewise, our ClearPoint system is also in use with the two major interventional MR/OR platforms, which are manufactured by IMRIS and Brainlab.

In April 2011, we entered into a co-development and distribution agreement with Brainlab, a leader in the development of software-driven medical technology that supports targeted, less-invasive patient treatment. Under that agreement, we appointed Brainlab as a distributor of our ClearPoint system products, on a non-exclusive basis, in the United States and Europe. We also agreed to collaborate on the potential integration of our ClearPoint system technologies with Brainlab’s own interventional MRI technologies, with particular focus on direct delivery of drugs and other therapeutic agents to targets in the brain under MRI guidance, which we call the MRI-guided neurological drug delivery field of use. For that reason, we appointed Brainlab as our exclusive distributor of ClearPoint system products within the MRI-guided neurological drug delivery field of use.

The Need for Minimally Invasive Neurological Interventions

Millions of people suffer from neurological diseases including: movement disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor and dystonia; psychiatric disorders such as major depression, obsessive compulsive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease; and brain tumors, such as glioblastoma multiform. The first line of therapy for

5

Table of Contents

most of these conditions is systemic administration of drugs. For example, to treat the early stages of Parkinson’s disease, a patient is often prescribed a drug called levodopa. Drugs such as levodopa can be effective in the earlier stages of the disease; however, as the disease progresses, systemic drugs may become less effective, and potentially ineffective, in treating the patient. Given the shortcomings of systemic drugs like levodopa, the medical community has focused significant resources to find new non-systemic or “local” therapies to treat these patients.

The development activity in, and the use of, local therapies is growing. For example, drug companies and researchers have identified and are investigating various compounds that are delivered directly into the diseased area of the brain, such as directly into the center of a tumor in the brain. Similarly, the medical community has developed a technique commonly referred to as focal lesioning, under which a special probe is inserted into a target area of the brain and a small area of diseased brain tissue is then destroyed by applying laser energy or radio frequency energy through the tip of the special probe. Physicians perform this procedure to treat disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor and epilepsy. The medical community has also developed another local therapy known as deep brain stimulation, or DBS. DBS uses mild electrical pulses from an implanted device to stimulate a small target region in the brain. A DBS system looks and operates much like a cardiac pacemaker, except that instead of sending pulses to the heart, it delivers electrical stimulation through the electrodes placed at a precisely targeted area in the brain. The FDA has approved the use of DBS for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor. The FDA has also approved the use of DBS for the treatment of dystonia and obsessive compulsive disorder pursuant to humanitarian device exemptions. FDA approval is currently being sought for the use of DBS to treat epilepsy, and DBS is also being investigated as a therapy for treatment-resistant major depression.

These local therapies, among others, involve insertion of a catheter, probe or electrode into a target region of the brain, typically performed as a minimally invasive procedure. However, performing these minimally invasive interventions in the brain presents special challenges, including a need to reach a small therapeutic target often located deep within the brain, which target is often an area as small as a few millimeters in diameter. To reach these targets, the physician must act with precision to avoid damaging adjacent areas that are responsible for important neurological functions, such as memory or speech, or penetrating blood vessels which can lead to a life-threatening hemorrhage. The medical community developed stereotactic neurosurgery to address these obstacles. But, despite years of development and clinical experience, conventional stereotactic procedures remain complicated and time-consuming for many neurological interventions and can be extremely difficult on the patient.

Challenges with Conventional Stereotactic Neurosurgical Procedures

Conventional stereotactic neurosurgical procedures are performed in a standard operating room. With this method, a large, metal stereotactic frame is typically fixed to the patient’s skull, using skull pins, to provide a fixed and common coordinate system. After the frame is attached to the patient’s skull, the patient is then imaged pre-operatively, often using MRI, in order to obtain images showing both the stereotactic frame axes and the anatomical structures of the patient’s brain. These pre-operative images are then loaded into a surgical planning workstation. Surgical planning software is used to identify the neurological target for the procedure, as well as to define a trajectory path from the skull, through the brain tissue, and to the target. The planned trajectory and target location are then calculated in relation to the frame axes and then used to guide the surgery.

Because conventional stereotaxy relies on pre-operative images, and not intra-procedural images, errors in the alignment of the pre-operative images with the patient’s brain anatomy can, and often do, occur as a consequence of brain shift, variation in patient hydration, registration errors or misalignment of the frame. As a result, the physician often must undertake additional steps to further refine the process of locating the patient’s neurological target. These steps include physiological “mapping” of the brain and require an additional procedural step called microelectrode recording, which is a tedious and time-consuming process during which small probes containing microelectrodes are inserted into the deep brain structures, usually multiple times. As these microelectrode recording probes are passed through brain tissue, they pick up electrical activity. The microelectrode recording system then converts the electrical activity into audible tones. In hearing these various audible tones, a trained neurologist or neurophysiologist can distinguish different regions of the brain. Based on these tones, locations are mapped against the pre-operative images and used to refine and adjust the neurological target as depicted on those pre-operative images. New coordinates are then calculated and a new trajectory is planned. To further confirm locations in the brain, various physiologic responses are induced or monitored with the microelectrodes. These physiological mapping steps require the patient to be awake during the surgery and off medications. Given the procedure’s complexity, it is not uncommon for the procedure to last six or more hours.

6

Table of Contents

Our ClearPoint System Solution

Instead of relying on the indirect guidance of pre-operative imaging, microelectrode recording and physiological responses from the patient, our ClearPoint system is based on a direct approach, in which a physician is guided by high resolution magnetic resonance imaging during the procedure. By utilizing the direct approach of the ClearPoint system, the patient does not have to be awake and participating in his or her brain surgery. Instead, the patient can be under general anesthesia for the procedure and remain on his or her prescription drug regime. In addition, we believe the design of our ClearPoint system can significantly simplify how stereotactic neurological interventions are performed and can result in shorter procedure times.

A ClearPoint procedure is designed to be performed in a standard hospital-based MRI scanner. Our ClearPoint system is an integrated system comprised of hardware components, disposable components and intuitive, menu-driven software.

ClearPoint Hardware . Our hardware components consist primarily of an MR imaging head coil, head fixation frame, computer workstation and in-room monitor. The architecture of our imaging head coil allows for surgical access to the patient while maintaining high quality imaging capability. The head fixation frame is integrated with the head coil and is designed to optimize the placement of the head coil in proximity to the patient’s head. For certain MRI scanner platforms, such as the MRI scanners manufactured by Philips Healthcare, our imaging head coil may not be needed. Our ClearPoint system software is installed on a computer workstation networked with an MRI scanner, for which we use a commercially available laptop computer. The in-room monitor allows the physician to view the display of our ClearPoint system workstation from the scanner room while performing the procedure.

The ClearPoint hardware is shown in the following image.

ClearPoint Disposables . The disposable components of our ClearPoint system consist primarily of our SmartFrame trajectory device, a hand controller and related accessories. Our SmartFrame device is an adjustable trajectory frame that attaches to the patient’s skull and holds the targeting cannula. The hand controller attaches to our SmartFrame device, and it is used by the physician to adjust the roll, pitch and X and Y orientation of the targeting cannula while the patient is in the MRI scanner. The accessories include all other components necessary to facilitate the MRI-guided neurological procedure, such as our SmartGrid patch, which is an MRI-visible marking grid that enables rapid localization of the entry position into the brain, and our customized surgical draping, which creates a sterile field within the MRI scanner.

The following images show our SmartFrame device attached to the patient’s head, as well as the hand controller attached to the SmartFrame device.

7

Table of Contents

ClearPoint Software . Our ClearPoint system software guides the physician in surgical planning, device alignment, navigation to the target and procedure monitoring. The software receives standard images from the MRI scanner via a network connection. The software leads the physician through a series of predefined steps, including MR image acquisition, establishment of image orientation landmarks, target identification and selection, trajectory planning, entry point planning and marking, targeting cannula orientation and refinement, and confirmation that the desired anatomical target(s) have been reached. The software uses image segmentation algorithms to help locate and identify our SmartFrame device and its targeting cannula, as well as the anatomical structures of the brain. The software also performs geometric computations to provide the physician with information regarding the positioning of instruments inserted into the patient’s brain relative to the target anatomical structures. At the completion of the procedure, the software generates an automated report that includes the key metrics from the procedure.

The following is a sample screenshot of our ClearPoint system software being used to select a trajectory path to a target location in the brain.

The ClearPoint Procedure. Our ClearPoint procedure is performed entirely within a standard hospital-based MRI suite. Once placed in the MRI scanner, the patient’s head is immobilized in our imaging head coil and integrated head fixation frame with the patient’s head accessible to the physician. The physician then places our MRI-visible SmartGrid patch onto the patient’s head where the physician expects to enter the skull. The patient is then moved to the center of the scanner and images are taken of the patient’s brain that include the target area and our SmartGrid patch. Once the imaging is complete, the images are transferred to our ClearPoint system workstation so that the physician can determine the specific target site within the brain and the optimal trajectory path for the placement of the interventional device. With the trajectory path established, our ClearPoint system software will identify the specific location on our SmartGrid patch that corresponds with where the planned trajectory intersects the skull. The physician will then mark the skull using our custom marking tool. At the site of the mark, the physician will create the burr hole, which is the small hole in the patient’s skull through which the interventional device can be inserted into the brain.

8

Table of Contents

Our SmartFrame device is then centered and attached over the burr hole. The target and planned trajectory is reconfirmed by the physician using our ClearPoint system workstation. Using the hand controller, the physician adjusts the trajectory of the MRI-visible SmartFrame device to align the instrument with the planned trajectory. During this process, the software estimates a number of turns and direction of turn on each of the hand controller’s color coded thumbwheels to align the instrument to the planned trajectory.

Once our SmartFrame device has been aligned to the proper trajectory, the depth dimension is calculated by the software. Immediately before insertion and partway through insertion, images are taken to ensure that the probe is correctly tracking along the planned trajectory. The physician continues advancing the interventional device towards the target site until it “snaps” into place on the SmartFrame device indicating that the interventional device has reached the proper depth. At this time, images are taken at the target site to insure the interventional device is in the proper location relative to the desired target.

Regulatory Status

Our ClearPoint system has a general indication for use. Our 510(k) clearance from the FDA permits us to market and promote our ClearPoint system in the United States for use in general neurological procedures, which includes procedures such as biopsies, catheter insertions and electrode insertions. This is the same general indication for use that applies to other devices that have traditionally been used in the performance of stereotactic neurological procedures. Similar to other conventional stereotaxy-based systems, our ClearPoint system’s general neurological indication for use does not reference specific neurological procedures. As with other conventional stereotaxy-based systems, unless and until we receive FDA clearance or approval for use of our ClearPoint system for specific indications, uses in procedures other than general neurological procedures could be considered off-label uses of our ClearPoint system. We are not permitted to promote our system, or train physicians, for off-label uses. However, in their practice of medicine, physicians may lawfully choose to use medical devices for off-label uses. Therefore, similar to other conventional stereotaxy-based systems, a physician may use our ClearPoint system for specific indications that are not included in the FDA-cleared labeling. As they currently do with other conventional stereotaxy-based systems, we expect physicians will use our ClearPoint system in a variety of specific neurological procedures, including DBS electrode placement, direct drug delivery and focal lesioning.

In the European Union, our CE marking approval includes all components of our ClearPoint system, other than our imaging head coil. The CE mark for the ClearPoint system carries the same indication for use as our 510(k) clearance. We have applied for CE marking approval for our imaging head coil, and we expect to obtain that approval in the first quarter of 2012.

In January 2011, we received 510(k) clearance from the FDA for our SmartFlow neuro ventricular cannula. Our SmartFlow cannula, which is compatible with our ClearPoint system, is an MRI-compatible injection and aspiration cannula. It is indicated for use in the injection of Cytarabine, which is a chemotherapy drug, or the removal of cerebrospinal fluid from the ventricles of the brain during an intracranial procedure. The SmartFlow cannula is a disposable device intended for single patient use only and is not intended for implant.

The ClearTrace Cardiac Intervention System

General

Our second product platform, the ClearTrace system, is a product candidate still in development. The ClearTrace system is designed to allow catheter-based minimally invasive procedures in the heart to be performed using continuous, intra-procedural MRI guidance.

Catheter-based cardiac interventions performed in a fluoroscopy suite, generally referred to as a Cath Lab or EP Lab, have been the standard of care for the treatment of many cardiac disorders, such as cardiovascular disease. Certain procedures, such as stent placement, are well suited for fluoroscopic imaging because they do not require continuous, detailed visualization of the cardiac tissue. However, other procedures are not well suited for fluoroscopy because of the clinical need for continuous, high resolution imaging of the cardiac anatomy along with the interventional instruments. One example of such a procedure is cardiac ablation to treat cardiac arrhythmias, such as atrial fibrillation. Another example is the precision delivery of stem cells directly into the wall of the heart, which represents a promising therapy being researched for the treatment of heart failure.

9

Table of Contents

We anticipate that the ClearTrace system will be similar to the conventional Cath Lab or EP Lab, but with two critical distinctions. First, unlike the Cath Lab or EP Lab, we believe the ClearTrace system, once we have completed its development, will provide a continuous, high resolution, four dimensional imaging environment (the fourth dimension being time), which will include detailed visualization of cardiac tissue, along with the cardiac catheters used to deliver the therapy. We believe that this capability is required for the next generation of interventional cardiac therapies. Second, we anticipate that the ClearTrace system will eliminate all radiation exposure for both the patient and physician from the X-ray utilized in current procedures. Under current catheter-based treatments utilizing fluoroscopy, radiation exposure can exceed 45 minutes. We believe that the attributes of the ClearTrace system should position it to be the therapy of choice for cardiac ablation procedures to treat cardiac arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation, and the ideal platform for delivering future biologic therapies to treat heart failure and other similar cardiac disorders. The ClearTrace system is designed for procedures that initially will be performed using a Siemens 3T MRI scanner.

We began preliminary research for an MRI-guided cardiac ablation procedure shortly following our inception in 1998. As a culmination of our research efforts, in May 2009, we entered into an exclusive co-development agreement with Siemens for the development and commercialization of the hardware and MRI software necessary for the ClearTrace system. Under the terms of this agreement, we are working together with Siemens on the development of the ClearTrace software and the integration of system components. Once product development is completed, we will work together with Siemens on the commercial launch and field support of the ClearTrace system. We believe that our exclusive relationship with Siemens secures an important strategic market position for the ClearTrace system.

Challenges with Current Treatments for Atrial Fibrillation

Cardiac arrhythmia is an abnormal beating of the heart that can result in insufficient blood flow, which may cause dizziness, inadequate function of important organs in the body, stroke and even death. Atrial fibrillation affects over three million people in the United States and approximately 6.7 million people worldwide, making it the most common form of cardiac arrhythmia. Atrial fibrillation is characterized by the irregular fluttering or very rapid beating of the atria resulting from malfunction of the electrical conduction system in the walls of the atria. Atrial fibrillation is a leading cause of stroke among persons 65 years or older and it is associated with increased risk of heart failure and other morbidity.

Most atrial fibrillation treatments are palliative and do not cure atrial fibrillation. The most common are anti-arrhythmic and anticoagulant drugs. However, anti-arrhythmic drug therapy often becomes less effective over time, with approximately half of the patients developing resistance to the drugs. In addition, anti-arrhythmic drugs have potentially severe side effects, including pulmonary fibrosis, impaired liver function, thyroid problems and the development of worse and even life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias.

One highly effective, curative therapy for atrial fibrillation used today is an open-heart operation, commonly known as the surgical “Cox-Maze” procedure, which has reported success rates as high as 96%. During this open heart procedure, the physician makes a series of cuts in a specific “maze-like” formation along the inside walls of the left atrium with a scalpel, and then sutures these cuts back together. The scars create an uninterrupted conduction block containing the chaotic electrical impulses that cause atrial fibrillation, thereby returning the heart to a normal rhythm. The open heart Cox-Maze procedure is usually done in tandem with another open heart procedure, such as a valve replacement or coronary artery bypass, because this operation is traumatic to the patient, very expensive, and typically associated with long hospital stays and a three to six month recovery time.

Because of the effectiveness of the Cox-Maze method, the medical community has worked for years to develop a less invasive approach that generates comparable clinical outcomes. The current minimally invasive approach is performed in the EP Lab with the physician relying upon flouroscopic imaging to guide a catheter through a blood vessel into the right atrium, puncturing the septum and advancing the catheter into the left atrium of the heart. The physician then delivers energy through the catheter to create lesions and destroy the target tissue. During the procedure, the physician is assisted in guiding and positioning the catheter primarily by fluoroscopic imaging. However, fluoroscopic imaging has significant limitations, namely it does not permit the physician to see the cardiac anatomy and tissue, the location of the catheter in relation to the cardiac tissue, or the intra-procedural creation of the lesions necessary to create the conduction block. Furthermore, the use of fluoroscopy exposes both patient and physician to dangerous radiation for an extended period of time.

10

Table of Contents

Thus far, the medical community has been unsuccessful in replicating the high success rates of the highly invasive Cox-Maze procedure using a minimally-invasive catheter-based procedural approach. Despite the sophistication of the procedures, the success rates of the catheter-based approaches have been disappointing, some as low as 50% to 75%. We believe that the low success rate of the current catheter-based approaches is a result of the physician’s inability to see the cardiac tissue during the procedure. Unlike the imaging modalities used in the current catheter-based approach, an MRI-based procedure, such as one performed with the ClearTrace system, allows the physician to visualize a patient’s cardiac tissue. With this capability, a physician can, for example, distinguish healthy cardiac tissue from fibrotic tissue and see gaps in the lesion lines. MRI can allow visualization of ablation lesions that are created during the procedure. Because of the unique cardiac tissue visualization and assessment capabilities of MRI, we believe the medical community is advancing towards an MRI-guided approach and we believe that an MRI-guided approach may finally deliver Cox-Maze-like success rates with a minimally invasive catheter-based procedure.

The ClearTrace System Solution

We believe the ClearTrace system will represent a new paradigm in performing cardiac interventions. Similar to our ClearPoint system, the ClearTrace system is designed as an integrated system of hardware components, disposable components and intuitive, menu-driven software.

ClearTrace Hardware . The hardware components will be centered around our ClearConnect system, which is an MRI-compatible hardware and cable management system to safely enable MRI-guided cardiac ablation procedures in an MRI scanner.

ClearTrace Disposables . The disposable components will include an ablation catheter, mapping catheter, coronary sinus catheter and septal puncture kit. Our ablation catheter will be used to perform MRI-guided delivery of ablative energy to create cardiac lesions. Our mapping catheter will be used for MRI-guided collection of intracardiac electrocardiogram signals and will include analog/digital filtering to enable electrocardiogram collection during scanning. Our coronary sinus catheter will be used to collect additional electrocardiogram signals and to provide cardiac pacing and defibrillation, as needed during the procedure. Our septal puncture kit will consist of a septal puncture needle, a dialator and sheath and will be used to perform an MRI-guided puncture of the septum of the heart to allow movement between the right atrium and left atrium. All catheters and components will be MRI-compatible and tightly integrated with the MRI scanner.

ClearTrace Software . The ClearTrace system will include software designed to assist the physician in: surgical planning; creating three dimensional volumes of cardiac chambers; navigating our ClearTrace catheters within the cardiac chambers; visualizing lesions as they are formed; tracking prior lesion locations; evaluating ablated cardiac tissue; and monitoring for possible adverse events. Under our co-development agreement, Siemens is responsible for developing the ClearTrace system software to our specifications. The ClearTrace system software will be integrated with our disposable components.

The ClearTrace Procedure. We believe the ClearTrace system will offer a novel, comprehensive solution for the planning, delivering and intra-procedural assessment of catheter-based cardiac interventions. The following discussion outlines what we believe will be the key steps in performing a ClearTrace system procedure to treat atrial fibrillation, as well as expected key ClearTrace system capabilities, subject to the completion of system development and receipt of appropriate regulatory clearance or approval.

A ClearTrace procedure will be performed in a standard, hospital-based 3T Siemens MRI scanner suite. At the start of a ClearTrace procedure, a MRI scan will be performed of the patient’s heart and surrounding vasculature. Using the images from the scan, the ClearTrace system software will generate a three dimensional volumetric model of the patient’s cardiac chambers that the physician will use as a guide while performing the procedure. Additional MRI images and patient data could be mapped onto the surface of the three dimensional model as needed by the physician. Referencing the three dimensional model and surface mapped image data and using real time MRI scans of the patient’s heart, the physician will plan the cardiac ablation procedure.

The ClearTrace coronary sinus catheter then will be advanced through a blood vessel under MRI guidance and placed in the coronary sinus to collect electrocardiogram signals and to provide cardiac pacing and defibrillation, as may be needed during the procedure. The remaining ClearTrace catheters then will be advanced through a blood vessel

11

Table of Contents

under MRI guidance into the right atrium of the heart. Using the ClearTrace system plan, the physician will advance the catheters through the targeted site on the septum and into the left atrium. Referencing the ablation plan, and with continuous intra-procedural visualization of the catheters and patient anatomy, the physician will advance the catheters to the site of the first planned ablation. With the ClearTrace ablation catheter in the correct location, the physician will begin applying energy to the tip of the catheter to create a lesion.

During ablation, the ClearTrace system will present intra-procedural MR images that will allow the physician to see the changes in the tissue caused by the ablative energy, which we believe would give the physician visualization capabilities similar to what he or she has in the open heart Cox-Maze procedure. The physician will then repeat the process of creating and visualizing lesions within the left atrium until the ablation plan has been completed. The physician will complete the procedure by taking a final scan to confirm the proper placement of all lesions.

By allowing the physician to see the lesions during the procedure, we believe the physician will be able to make better decisions about where to ablate, what amount of energy to apply and how long to apply the energy. We believe this improved decision making capability will result in improved outcomes and reduced adverse events. In addition to the ability to visualize the changes in the cardiac tissue, we believe the physician will also be able to use a loop catheter to measure electrical signals from the inside surface of the left atrium to further guide and confirm the effectiveness of the ablation process.

Other Potential Applications

We believe the ClearTrace system’s unique ability to provide continuous, high resolution imaging of the cardiac anatomy, including the walls of the heart, during an interventional procedure will be valuable in treating other cardiac disorders. For example, we believe the ClearTrace system could serve as an ideal platform for delivering drugs and other therapeutic agents directly into the heart wall. The medical community is developing novel compounds that have the potential to address significant cardiac disorders, such as heart failure. However, some of these compounds must be injected directly into the heart wall with precision placement at the boundary of healthy and diseased tissue. Using the ClearTrace system, we believe a physician will be able to navigate within the heart to the boundary between healthy and diseased tissue, place the catheter tip on the boundary, inject the compound and watch the dispersion of the compound into the heart wall.

Regulatory Status

The ClearTrace system is still under development, and we have not made any filings seeking regulatory approval or clearance for the ClearTrace system in the United States or in any foreign jurisdiction. In the United States, we believe that most components of the ClearTrace system will be Class II medical devices and will fall under the FDA’s 510(k) regulatory process. However, the ablation catheter component will be a Class III medical device and will require FDA approval of a premarket approval application, or PMA. We anticipate that the initial market for the ClearTrace system will be the European Union, and we plan to seek CE marking approval for the ClearTrace system. To date, we have been conducting animal studies and other preclinical work with respect to the ClearTrace system. At this time, we are not able to estimate when we will make a filing seeking regulatory approval or clearance for the ClearTrace system.

Our Strategy

Our key objective is to develop and commercialize medical systems to enable minimally invasive surgical procedures to be performed under direct, intra-procedural MRI guidance. Key elements of our strategy to achieve this objective are:

12

Table of Contents

Licenses and Collaborative Relationships

In addition to our internally-developed technologies and devices, we have established and intend to continue to pursue licenses and collaborative relationships with medical device companies and academic institutions to further the development and commercialization of our product platforms and our core technologies. Our current licenses and collaborative relationships are discussed below.

Brainlab

In April 2011, we entered into a co-development and distribution agreement with Brainlab. Our agreement with Brainlab has a term of five years. Pursuant to the agreement, we and Brainlab will work together to potentially integrate our ClearPoint system technologies with Brainlab’s own interventional MRI technologies for application in the MRI-guided neurological drug delivery field of use, subject to appropriate regulatory clearance or approval. Brainlab, at its expense, will explore the integration of our ClearPoint system technologies with Brainlab’s interventional MRI technologies for other MRI-guided neurological procedures as well. Brainlab is responsible for obtaining any regulatory clearance or approval necessary to sell any product resulting from the integration of our respective technologies. During the term of the agreement, neither we nor Brainlab may enter into a collaborative arrangement with another party relating to the commercial development, sales or marketing of products in the MRI-guided neurological drug delivery field of use. In addition, Brainlab may not develop, market or sell in the MRI-guided neurological drug delivery field of use any product that performs substantially the same function as or otherwise competes with any of our ClearPoint products, other than products resulting from our co-development activities.

Under the agreement, we also granted Brainlab distribution rights with respect to our ClearPoint system. We appointed Brainlab as an exclusive distributor of ClearPoint products within the MRI-guided neurological drug delivery field of use and as a non-exclusive distributor of ClearPoint products for other MRI-guided neurological procedures. Brainlab’s distribution territory includes the United States, the European Union and Canada, although we do not yet have regulatory approval to sell our ClearPoint system in Canada. As our distributor, we will supply products to Brainlab at agreed upon transfer prices. We believe the agreed-upon transfer prices will yield substantially the same financial return per unit as we receive on our own direct sales. As both we and Brainlab will be selling the ClearPoint products outside the MRI-guided neurological drug delivery field of use, our agreement specifies that, to the extent a ClearPoint system is installed at a hospital due to Brainlab’s selling efforts, Brainlab will then be the party that sells all ClearPoint disposable products to that hospital.

Siemens

In May 2009, we entered into a cooperation and development agreement with Siemens to develop the hardware and MRI software systems for MRI-guided, catheter-based ablation to treat cardiac arrhythmias, such as atrial fibrillation. Under this agreement, Siemens is responsible for developing the software in accordance with our specifications, and we are responsible for developing the catheters and other hardware, other than the MRI scanner and workstation, necessary for the MRI-guided cardiac ablation procedures and for the integration work necessary to combine the software, catheters and other hardware to create the ClearTrace system. The agreement provides for

13

Table of Contents

exclusivity for a period of five years following the date of regulatory clearance and/or approval, determined on a country-by-country basis. During the exclusivity period, Siemens may not market or offer software that is intended to work with a third party’s catheters to conduct an MRI-guided cardiac ablation procedure, and we may not sell or offer any catheters that are intended to be used with an MRI scanner manufactured by a third party to conduct an MRI-guided cardiac ablation procedure. For two years after the exclusivity period ends, neither we nor Siemens may enter into an agreement or relationship with a third party that excludes or prevents the use of our devices with Siemens’ MRI systems, and vice versa, in the field of MRI-guided cardiac ablation procedures. The agreement requires us to pay Siemens up to approximately $2,500,000 for Siemens’ successful development of the software in accordance with our specifications. As of September 30, 2011, we have paid Siemens $800,000 and, in addition, we have accrued payables of approximately $574,000. Once the software for the ClearTrace system is commercially available, Siemens will pay to us a fixed amount for each software license sold by Siemens until we recoup our investment. The term of the agreement will expire once (i) all software, catheter and other hardware development and integration work has been successfully completed, (ii) requisite regulatory clearances or approvals have been obtained in at least the United States, Canada and Europe, and (iii) the product has been clinically released in at least the United States, Canada and Europe. Prior to or upon expiration of the term of the cooperation and development agreement, we anticipate entering into a separate sales and marketing agreement with Siemens.

Boston Scientific

In connection with our research and development efforts for the ClearPoint and ClearTrace systems, we developed technologies that we believe can improve the MRI-safety profile of implantable medical leads. Implantable medical leads are thin, insulated wires that are connected to implantable generators, such as a pacemaker or neurostimulator, and deliver electrical pulses or stimulation to a specific area of the body, such as the heart or the brain. In 2005 and 2008, we entered into agreements with Boston Scientific that contemplate the use of our MRI-safety technologies in Boston Scientific’s implantable leads, as further described below.

Background on our MRI-Safety Technologies for Implantable Leads

It is estimated that between 50% and 75% of patients with an implantable device are expected to need an MRI scan during the lifetime of their devices. However, implantable medical leads are susceptible to heating in the MRI environment. An MRI scanner transmits radio frequency energy during the scanning process. Because the implantable lead contains metallic wire, which acts like an antenna, some of the radio frequency energy transmitted by the MRI scanner is absorbed by the lead. This could cause the lead to heat. The extent to which an implantable lead may heat can depend on many factors, such as the lead itself, the position of the patient in the MRI scanner, the clinical scanning sequence used and the location and trajectory of the lead in the patient. Scientific studies have shown that implantable leads may heat during an MRI scan to temperatures that can burn or destroy tissue. If that happens in the heart or brain, the patient could suffer a stroke, paralysis or even death. As a result, people with active implantable devices generally are prohibited from undergoing an MRI scan.

We believe our technologies address this issue by maintaining lead temperatures well within safe levels during an MRI scan. Current safety standards for active implantable medical devices require that MRI-related heating may not exceed one degree Celsius in the brain and two degrees Celsius in the heart. Our testing has shown that our technologies limit lead heating to less than one degree Celsius. Therefore, we believe our MRI-safety technologies will permit a patient with an implantable medical device to undergo an MRI scan. Manufacturers’ studies have shown that cardiologists identify “MRI compatibility” as one of the main features that would drive a change in brand preference.

Neuromodulation Agreements

In December 2005, we entered into a development agreement and license agreement with Boston Scientific in the neuromodulation field:

System and Lead Development and Transfer Agreement . The development agreement relates to the design and development of MRI-compatible and MRI-safe implantable leads for neuromodulation applications, such as implantable DBS leads. Under the development agreement, we could receive up to $800,000 in future milestone-based payments associated with successful development and regulatory approval of the leads. The development agreement provides that if the milestones are not completed by December 31, 2012, and the failure to achieve the milestones was not the result of Boston Scientific’s failure to cooperate with us in the pursuit of the milestones, we are required to repay Boston Scientific certain amounts, including any milestone payments previously paid to us by Boston Scientific under this agreement and any patent prosecution costs incurred by Boston Scientific with respect to the intellectual property licensed to Boston Scientific pursuant to the technology license agreement described below. As of December 31, 2011, the potential obligation to Boston Scientific was approximately $750,000, plus costs incurred by Boston Scientific in prosecuting the licensed intellectual property. However, Boston Scientific has assumed responsibility for the neuromodulation lead development efforts under this agreement. Given that Boston Scientific is wholly responsible for the pace and progress of the development efforts, we do not believe we will have any repayment obligation to Boston Scientific in the event the development milestones are not completed by December 31, 2012.

14

Table of Contents

Technology License Agreement . Under the license agreement, we granted Boston Scientific an exclusive worldwide license with respect to certain of our owned or licensed intellectual property in the neuromodulation field to make, use, import, lease and sell neuro-related leads, neuro-related lead extensions, and neuro-related lead-type devices, such as implantable pulse generators. The license included a sublicense of applicable intellectual property that we licensed from The Johns Hopkins University, as further described below. Boston Scientific has agreed to pay us royalties on net sales of products that are covered by a licensed patent; however, Boston Scientific has no obligation to include the licensed intellectual property in its products or product candidates. Pursuant to the development agreement described above, Boston Scientific is responsible for patent prosecution of the licensed intellectual property and the payment of costs associated with patent prosecution.

Implantable Cardiac Agreements

In March 2008, we entered into a development agreement and license agreement with Boston Scientific in the field of implantable medical leads for cardiac applications.

Development Agreement . Under the development agreement, we are working with Boston Scientific to assess the feasibility of and, upon successful completion of feasibility studies, to design and develop different types of MRI-compatible, MRI-safe implantable cardiac rhythm management leads. Under the terms of the agreement, we could receive up to $20,000,000 in future milestone-based payments associated with successful development activities under the agreement as well as regulatory approval of the different implantable lead types. No earned milestone payments will be made unless and until the applicable lead is covered by an issued patent licensed to Boston Scientific pursuant to the technology license agreement described below. The development agreement is scheduled to expire upon FDA approval of a design for each different implantable lead type. The agreement provides Boston Scientific with a one-time option, which must be exercised within 60 days after successful completion of the first lead feasibility study, to cease further development and to terminate the development agreement. We are in discussions with Boston Scientific regarding whether the first lead feasibility study has been successfully completed.

Technology License Agreement . Under the license agreement, we granted Boston Scientific an exclusive worldwide license with respect to certain of our owned or licensed intellectual property in the field of implantable medical leads for cardiac applications to make, have made, use, promote, market, import, distribute, lease, sell, offer for sale and commercialize products in that particular field of use. The license included a sublicense of applicable intellectual property that we licensed from The Johns Hopkins University. We received licensing fees of $13,000,000 in 2008. Boston Scientific has also agreed to pay us royalties on net sales of products that are covered by a licensed patent; however, Boston Scientific has no obligation to include our licensed intellectual property in its products or product candidates. Boston Scientific is responsible for patent prosecution of the licensed intellectual property and the payment of costs associated with patent prosecution. In the event it is determined that the first lead feasibility study under the development agreement described above has not been successfully completed, Boston Scientific will still have its one-time option to terminate the development agreement. Under those circumstances, if Boston Scientific subsequently elects to exercise its termination option, the license we granted Boston Scientific will automatically become non-exclusive with respect to some intellectual property, other intellectual property will be removed from the scope of the license and revert to us, and Boston Scientific will not be obligated to pay us future royalties or sublicense revenues based on sales of products covered by any issued patent that remains subject to the non-exclusive license.

Regulatory

Boston Scientific is responsible for making any regulatory filings with respect to its products that incorporate our MRI-safety technologies. To date, no such regulatory filing has been made with the FDA or any foreign authority. Boston Scientific will control the timing and manner of any regulatory filing, and it will be responsible for the costs associated with any regulatory filing. We do not anticipate that we will be able to influence the process or timing in any meaningful way. In the United States, we believe that any Boston Scientific product incorporating our MRI-safety technologies will be a Class III medical device and require a PMA submission.

The University of Utah

In July 2007, we entered into a research agreement with The University of Utah, or Utah. Under the agreement, Utah personnel are conducting research activities and experiments to develop knowledge, techniques, methods and technologies related to MRI-guided cardiac ablation, including a specific focus on MRI-guided cardiac ablation to treat atrial fibrillation. Those research activities are being performed through Utah’s Comprehensive Arrhythmia Research and Management (CARMA) Center, the mission of which is to redefine the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation through an interdisciplinary program of basic and clinical research focused on the understanding, diagnosis, and clinical treatment of atrial fibrillation. The CARMA Center has brought together multiple disciplines in cardiology, advanced MR imaging, image processing and biomedical research, and we believe the CARMA Center is on the forefront of using MRI in the management and treatment of patients suffering from atrial fibrillation. Pursuant our agreement, Utah granted us a non-exclusive, worldwide license to any intellectual property created or conceived by Utah personnel in the performance of the research. In addition, we also received the first option to license exclusively any such intellectual property. Our agreement with Utah will terminate March 31, 2012, unless we and Utah agree to extend the term.

15

Table of Contents

The Johns Hopkins University

We have in place five exclusive license agreements with Johns Hopkins. For additional information regarding these licenses, see “Business–Intellectual Property.”

Sales and Marketing

Commercializing our ClearPoint system involves marketing:

There are approximately 3,500 neurosurgeons in the United States. Similar to many fields of medicine, some neurosurgeons elect to focus on a particular specialty within the neurological field. For example, some neurosurgeons focus their practice on spine surgeries, others more on open craniotomy surgeries and others more on minimally invasive approaches, such as functional neurosurgery. We believe our ClearPoint system may be most applicable to those functional neurosurgeons, of whom there are approximately 300 in the United States, but we also market our ClearPoint system to other neurosurgeons. We believe that our ClearPoint system represents an attractive platform for a neurosurgery team within a hospital to perform various general neurological procedures.

Our business model for the ClearPoint system is focused on producing high margin revenue from sales of the disposable components. Given that focus on disposable product sales, we sell our reusable components at lower margins in order to secure installations of our system within hospitals. In addition, we may make the reusable ClearPoint components available to a hospital by loaning the equipment. Our disposable and reusable ClearPoint products are tightly integrated, which allows us to leverage each new installation of a system to generate recurring sales of our disposable products. We believe that our intellectual property rights associated with our disposable products, coupled with the tight integration between the reusable components and the disposable products, are sufficient to protect our interests. As of January 31, 2012, 14 ClearPoint systems have been installed, which includes seven systems we provided to hospitals under our loan program, five systems we sold, and two systems we installed at hospitals pursuant to the terms of research or clinical trial agreements. As of January 31, 2012, we also had agreements to provide loaned systems to four additional hospitals, but those systems have not yet been installed.

Presently, our sales and marketing efforts for our ClearPoint system are being coordinated primarily by our Vice President, Sales, our Vice President, Product Management and our two Clinical Engineering Managers, one of whom is located on the east coast of the United States and the other of whom is located on the west coast of the United States. We expect to continue building a small, highly focused sales force to market our ClearPoint system products in the United States. In addition, our distribution relationship with Brainlab significantly expands our sales and marketing capabilities for the ClearPoint system, both in the United States and in Europe.

Given the stage of development of the ClearTrace system, we have not developed a sales and marketing plan to commercialize ClearTrace either inside or outside the United States.

Research and Development

Continued innovation through research and development is critical to our future success. As of January 31, 2012, our research and development team, which is based primarily in our Irvine, California facility, consisted of eight employees. We have assembled an experienced team with recognized expertise in both the development of medical devices and advanced MRI technologies, including interventional MRI microcoils and catheters. We believe that our current research and development team is sufficient for our current needs; however, we may increase the size of our team depending on the progress of our ongoing research and development efforts.

16

Table of Contents

Our principal research and development goals are:

We have historically spent a significant portion of our capital resources on research and development. Our research and development expenses were approximately $4,258,000, $6,068,000 and $5,681,000 for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively. Our research and development expenses were approximately $3,134,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2011.

Manufacturing and Assembly

Our ClearPoint system includes off-the-shelf components, custom-made components produced to our proprietary specifications by various third parties and components that we assemble in our Irvine, California facility. We use third parties to manufacture these components to utilize their individual expertise, minimize our capital investment and help control costs. We purchase most custom-made components of our ClearPoint system from a single source due to quality considerations, lower costs and constraints resulting from regulatory requirements; however, we believe alternative sources are available, if needed. Generally, we purchase our components through purchase orders and do not have long-term contracts with most of our suppliers.

Our Irvine, California facility is structured to complete component processing, final assembly, packaging and distribution activities for our ClearPoint system. The assembly process is performed in a controlled environment as required by applicable regulation for medical device assembly. Our operations are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA under its Quality System Regulation, or QSR, which requires that manufacturers have a quality management system for the design and production of medical devices. In addition, to the extent we conduct business outside the United States, we are subject to international regulatory requirements.

Our Irvine, California facility is FDA-registered, and we believe it is compliant with the FDA’s QSR. We are also certified to ISO standard 13485. We have instituted a quality management system, under which we have established policies and procedures that control and direct our operations with respect to design, procurement, manufacture, inspection, testing, installation, data analysis, training and marketing. We review and internally audit our compliance with these policies and procedures, which provides a means for continued evaluation and improvement. As required by our quality management system, we undertake an assessment and qualification process for each third-party manufacturer or supplier that we use. Typically, our third-party manufacturers and suppliers are certified to ISO standard 9001 and/or 13485. We also periodically perform audit procedures on our third-party manufacturers and suppliers to monitor their activities for compliance with our quality management system. Our facility and the facilities of the third-party manufacturers and suppliers we use are subject to periodic inspections by regulatory authorities, including the FDA and other governmental agencies.

Intellectual Property

We believe that in order to maintain a competitive advantage in the marketplace, we must develop and maintain the proprietary aspects of our technologies. We rely on a combination of patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright and other intellectual property rights and measures to protect our intellectual property.

Our patent portfolio includes rights to patents and patent applications that we own, whether wholly-owned or co-owned, or license from others. We seek patent protection in the United States and internationally for our products and technologies where and when we believe it is appropriate. United States patents are granted generally for a term of 20 years from the earliest effective priority date of the patent application. The actual protection afforded by a foreign patent, which can vary from country to country, depends on the type of patent, the scope of its claims and the availability of legal remedies in the country.

17

Table of Contents

We also rely on other forms of intellectual property rights and measures, including trade secrets and nondisclosure agreements, to maintain and protect proprietary aspects of our products and technologies. We require our employees and consultants to execute confidentiality agreements in connection with their employment or consulting relationships with us. We also require our employees and consultants to disclose and assign to us all inventions conceived during the term of their employment or engagement while using our property or which relate to our business.

Patents and Patent Applications

We have a significant intellectual property portfolio in the field of MRI-guided interventions. As of January 31, 2012, our portfolio included 63 patents and 113 patent applications, both United States and foreign, which we wholly-own, co-own or have licensed.

Owned Patents and Patent Applications

As of January 31, 2012, we wholly owned nine issued United States patents (including one design patent), 27 pending United States patent applications (including three provisional applications), seven issued foreign patent and 42 pending foreign patent applications (including one Patent Cooperation Treaty application). In addition, as of January 31, 2012, we co-owned with third-parties a total of seven issued United States patents, eight pending United States patent applications, 11 issued foreign patents and 19 pending foreign patent applications. Our owned, issued patents expire at various dates beginning in 2020.

Among our co-owned patents and patent applications, as of January 31, 2012, four issued United States patents, 10 issued foreign patents and one pending foreign patent application were co-owned by us and The Johns Hopkins University, two issued United States patents, eight pending United States patent applications, one issued foreign patent and 17 pending foreign patent applications were co-owned by us and Boston Scientific, and one issued United States patent and one pending foreign patent application were co-owned by us and other third parties.

We have licensing and cross-licensing arrangements in place with Boston Scientific with respect to the patent and patent applications we co-own with them. As a result of those arrangements, we have exclusive rights to all fields outside neuromodulation and implantable medical leads for cardiac applications, and we have licensed the fields of neuromodulation and implantable medical leads for cardiac applications to Boston Scientific.

Pursuant to our licensing and development arrangements with Boston Scientific, we may be required to assign Boston Scientific title to the patents and patent applications that we own and that we license to Boston Scientific. This includes patents and patent applications that we wholly own, as well as patents and patent applications that we co-own with Boston Scientific and others. As of January 31, 2012, our licensing arrangements with Boston Scientific included six wholly owned issued United States patents, three wholly owned pending United States patent applications, seven wholly owned issued foreign patents, seven wholly owned pending foreign patent applications, seven co-owned issued United States patents, eight co-owned pending United States patent applications, 11 co-owned issued foreign patents and 19 co-owned pending foreign patent applications. During 2009, Boston Scientific loaned us $3,500,000 pursuant to the terms of three convertible promissory notes. While those loans remain outstanding, we must meet certain net working capital targets, be current on our payroll obligations, and not suffer an event of default under any indebtedness for borrowed money. If we fail to meet those requirements, we will be required to assign the patents and patent applications to Boston Scientific. However, upon any such assignment to Boston Scientific, Boston Scientific will grant us an exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual worldwide license to the same patents and patent applications in all fields of use outside neuromodulation and implantable medical leads for cardiac applications.

Patents and Patent Applications Licensed from Third-Parties

As of January 31, 2012, we had licensed rights to 14 United States and 15 foreign third-party issued patents, and we had licensed rights to six United States and 11 foreign third-party pending patent applications. Our licensed, issued patents expire at various dates beginning in 2015.

License Arrangements

Our license arrangements are discussed below. The underlying agreements are filed as exhibits to this registration statement.

License Arrangements with The Johns Hopkins University

Our principal licensing arrangement is with Johns Hopkins. Shortly following our formation in 1998, we entered into a license agreement with Johns Hopkins pursuant to which we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to a number of technologies owned by Johns Hopkins relating to devices, systems and methods for performing MRI-guided interventions, such as MRI-guided cardiac ablation procedures. The field of use for this exclusive license covers diagnostic or therapeutic methods, processes or devices using an intravascular, intralumen or intratissue miniature magnetic resonance coil detection probe. We are obligated to pay Johns Hopkins an annual maintenance fee, and we are also obligated to pay a royalty to Johns Hopkins based on the sale of products or provision of

18

Table of Contents

services covered by a licensed patent. To the extent we sublicense any licensed intellectual property to a third-party, we agreed to pay Johns Hopkins a percentage of revenue we receive as a result of the sublicense. Under our license agreements with Boston Scientific, we sublicensed intellectual property that is licensed from Johns Hopkins. Therefore, we are obligated to pay Johns Hopkins a percentage of any revenue we receive from sales by Boston Scientific of products covered by a sublicensed patent. This license agreement with Johns Hopkins will terminate upon the expiration of the last to expire of the licensed patents.

In December 2006, we entered into a second license agreement with Johns Hopkins under which we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to certain MRI-safety technologies owned by Johns Hopkins. Under the agreement, we are obligated to pay a royalty to Johns Hopkins based on the sale of products or provision of services covered by a licensed patent, subject to a minimum annual payment. Likewise, to the extent we sublicense any intellectual property to a third party, we agreed to pay Johns Hopkins a percentage of revenue we receive as a result of the sublicense. Under our license agreements with Boston Scientific, we sublicensed intellectual property that is licensed from Johns Hopkins. Therefore, we are obligated to pay Johns Hopkins a percentage of any revenue we receive from sales by Boston Scientific of products covered by a sublicensed patent. This license agreement with Johns Hopkins will terminate upon the expiration of the last to expire of the licensed patents.

We entered into three additional exclusive license agreements with Johns Hopkins in June 2008 as described below. Our development efforts with respect to the technologies we licensed under those agreements are at an early stage.

License Arrangements with Cedara Software Corp.

In July 2007, we entered into a master service and license agreement with Cedara Software Corp. (d/b/a Merge OEM), or Cedara, for Cedara to develop on our behalf, based on our detailed specifications, a customized software solution for our ClearPoint system. Cedara is in the business of providing software development and engineering services on a contract basis to a number of companies. In developing our ClearPoint system software, Cedara

19

Table of Contents

utilized certain of its own pre-existing software code. Under our agreement with Cedara, we received a non-exclusive, worldwide license to that code as an integrated component of our ClearPoint system software. In return, we agreed to pay Cedara a license fee for each copy of our ClearPoint system software that we distribute. Except for Cedara’s pre-existing software code, the work performed by Cedara was a “work-made-for-hire” and we exclusively own our ClearPoint system software. The agreement provides for annual minimum licensing fees. Our license from Cedara continues through July 2015, absent a mutual extension of the license term. If necessary, we could replace the licensed Cedara code.

License Arrangements with the National Institutes of Health

In April 2009, we entered into a patent license agreement with the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, that covers techniques for three dimensional renderings of the patient’s anatomy from MRI data in real time. The techniques underlying this patent may be used in the development of the ClearTrace system. Under the terms of this agreement, we have a non-exclusive license to a pending United States patent application within the field of devices and systems for MRI-guided medical procedures. Our licensed territory includes Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, Japan and the United States, although there is no patent or patent application pending for the licensed intellectual property outside the United States. Pursuant to this agreement, we are obligated to make royalty payments to NIH based on the sale of products and the practice of processes covered by the licensed intellectual property, whether by us or any sublicensee. In addition, NIH is entitled to receive a single milestone payment in the event we receive a regulatory clearance or approval of a product or process covered by the licensed intellectual property.

Competition

General

The length of time required for products to be developed and to receive regulatory and, in some cases, reimbursement clearance or approval is an important competitive factor. However, even if we are successful in obtaining regulatory clearances or approvals, the medical device industry is characterized by rapid and significant technological change. Thus, the development by others of new treatment methods, including novel drugs, medical devices or surgical techniques could render our product candidates non-competitive or obsolete. As a result, product development involves a high degree of risk and there can be no assurance that our current or new product development efforts will result in any commercially successful products.

ClearPoint System

Our success depends on convincing hospitals, neurosurgeons, neurologists and patients to utilize our ClearPoint system. Currently, we are not aware of any other company that offers a direct MRI-guided stereotactic system for neurological interventions, although two companies, Monteris Medical Inc. and Visualase, Inc., do offer devices for laser ablation under direct MRI guidance. However, companies such as Brainlab, Elekta AB, FHC Inc. and Medtronic, Inc. offer instruments and systems for use in conventional stereotactic neurological procedures, such as surgical navigation workstations and frame-based and frameless stereotactic systems, and these instruments and systems are competitive with our ClearPoint system. Additionally, we could also face competition from other medical device and pharmaceutical companies that have the technology, experience and capital resources to develop alternative therapy methods, including MRI-guided technologies. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, manufacturing, marketing and technical resources than we have.

ClearTrace System

Our success depends on convincing hospitals, physicians and patients to utilize the ClearTrace system for performing cardiac ablation procedures. While we are not aware of any companies that currently offer a direct MRI-guided cardiac ablation system, companies such as Imricor Medical Systems, Inc. and Philips Healthcare are in the process of developing such a system. We are not aware of any potential competitive advantages or disadvantages relative to any such system under development; however, if any of these companies develops, obtains regulatory clearance or approval and achieves commercial success for a direct MRI-guided cardiac ablation system, the ClearTrace system could be rendered non-competitive or obsolete.

20

Table of Contents

We also will face competition from companies who are engaged in the development and marketing of conventional catheter-based cardiac ablation systems and devices. These products include mapping systems using contact mapping, single-point spatial mapping and non-contact, multi-site electrical mapping technologies and ablation systems using radio frequency, ultrasound, laser and cryoablation technologies. These products evolve rapidly, and their manufacturers are constantly attempting to make them easier to use or more efficacious in performing procedures. Today, the vast majority of minimally invasive catheter-based cardiac ablation procedures are performed with these products. Because these products are currently in use while the ClearTrace system remains under development, physician preferences will have to shift for the ClearTrace system to gain market acceptance. We believe that the primary factors which will drive physician preference will be the relative success rates and ease of the procedure for physicians with respect to the ClearTrace system compared to the alternative technologies available.

We are aware of two companies, Hansen Medical, Inc. and Stereotaxis, Inc., which market systems to remotely control catheters during interventional cardiac ablation and other procedures using either robotic or magnetic steering. The nature of these systems potentially could provide better control over the catheter compared to manual manipulation by the physician; however, these systems do not provide the physician with detailed intra-procedural visualization of the cardiac tissue. Also, other manufacturers are attempting to market devices that access the exterior of the heart wall through an endoscopic surgical technique called thoracoscopy to treat atrial fibrillation. Because this procedure was developed recently, the clinical advantages and disadvantages of this approach compared to a catheter-based approach inside the heart have not been established. Therefore, we are not aware of any competitive advantages or disadvantages of this procedure relative to the anticipated ClearTrace system procedure.

Additionally, we will face competition from large companies who are engaged in the development and marketing of products for other treatments of cardiac arrhythmias, such as atrial fibrillation. Their products include drugs, implantable devices, such as implantable defibrillators and pacemakers, and the devices used in open-heart surgery. While both current drug therapy and implantable cardiac devices can be effective in treating the symptoms of atrial fibrillation, they do not provide a cure for the underlying disease. Open-heart surgery, such as the Cox-Maze procedure, can provide a cure for atrial fibrillation and reported success rates have been very high; however, it is an invasive surgical procedure that is traumatic to the patient, very expensive and typically associated with long hospital stays and recovery times.

Many of our potential competitors have an established presence in the field of cardiac electrophysiology, including cardiac ablation, such as Biosense Webster Inc., a division of Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Inc. and St. Jude Medical, Inc. These potential competitors have substantially greater financial and other resources than we do, including larger research and development staffs and more experience and greater capabilities in conducting research and development activities, testing products in clinical trials, obtaining regulatory clearances or approvals, and manufacturing, marketing and distributing products.

Regulatory Requirements of the United States Food and Drug Administration

Our research, development and clinical programs, as well as our manufacturing and marketing operations, are subject to extensive regulation in the United States and other countries. Most notably, all of our products sold in the United States are subject to regulation as medical devices under the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, as implemented and enforced by the FDA. The FDA governs the following activities that we perform or that are performed on our behalf, to ensure that the medical products we manufacture, promote and distribute domestically or exported internationally are safe and effective for their intended uses:

21

Table of Contents

FDA Premarket Clearance and Approval Requirements

Unless an exemption applies, each medical device we wish to commercially distribute in the United States will require either premarket notification, or 510(k) clearance, or approval of a premarket approval application, or PMA, from the FDA. The FDA classifies medical devices into one of three classes. Class I devices, considered to have the lowest risk, are those for which safety and effectiveness can be assured by adherence to the FDA’s general regulatory controls for medical devices, which include compliance with the applicable portions of the FDA’s QSR, facility registration and product listing, reporting of adverse medical events, and appropriate, truthful and non-misleading labeling, advertising, and promotional materials (General Controls). Class II devices are subject to the FDA’s General Controls, and any other special controls as deemed necessary by the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device (Special Controls). Manufacturers of most Class II and some Class I 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. This process is generally known as 510(k) clearance. Devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risks, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting or 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.

510(k) Clearance Pathway

When a 510(k) clearance is required, we will be required to submit a 510(k) application demonstrating that our proposed device is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared 510(k) device or a device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 for which the FDA has not yet called for the submission of PMAs. By regulation, the FDA is required to clear or deny a 510(k) premarket notification within 90 days of submission of the application. As a practical matter, clearance may take longer. The FDA may require further information, including clinical data, to make a determination regarding substantial equivalence.

Once filed, the FDA has 90 days in which to review the 510(k) application and respond. Typically, the FDA’s response after reviewing a 510(k) application is a request for additional data or clarification. Depending on the complexity of the application and the amount of data required, the process may be lengthened by several months or more. If additional data, including clinical data, are needed to support our claims, the 510(k) application process may be significantly lengthened.

If the FDA issues an order declaring the device to be Not Substantially Equivalent, or NSE, the device is placed into a Class III or PMA category. At that time, a company can request a de novo classification of the product. De novo generally applies where there is no predicate device and the FDA believes the device is sufficiently safe so that no PMA should be required. The request must be in writing and sent within 30 days from the receipt of the NSE determination. The request should include a description of the device, labeling for the device, reasons for the recommended classification and information to support the recommendation. The de novo process has a 60 day review period. If the FDA classifies the device into Class II, a company will then receive an approval order to market the device. This device type can then be used as a predicate device for future 510(k) submissions. However, if the FDA subsequently determines that the device will remain in the Class III category, the device cannot be marketed until the company has obtained an approved PMA. If we are required to follow a de novo process, an additional 60 to 90 days or more will be added on to the original 90 days required for the initial 510(k) review.

Any modification to a 510(k)-cleared device that would constitute a major change in its intended use, or any change that could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, requires a new 510(k) clearance and may even, in some circumstances, require a PMA, if the change raises complex or novel scientific issues or the product has a new intended use. The FDA requires every manufacturer to make the determination regarding the need for a new 510(k) submission in the first instance, but the FDA may review any manufacturer’s decision. If the FDA were to disagree with any of our determinations that changes did not require a new 510(k) submission, it could require us to cease marketing and distribution and/or recall the modified device until 510(k) clearance or PMA

22

Table of Contents

approval is obtained. If the FDA requires us to seek 510(k) clearance or PMA approval for any modifications, we may be required to cease marketing and/or recall the modified device, if already in distribution, until 510(k) clearance or PMA approval is obtained and we could be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties.

The FDA continues its efforts to modernize its 510(k) process. In January 2011, the FDA announced an action plan that included 25 specific actions to improve the predictability, consistency and transparency of the 510(k) process. Although some of these specific actions have already been undertaken, the FDA continues to move forward on its action plan. As part of its efforts, in 2009, the FDA commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to report on the 510(k) approval process. In July 2011, the Institute of Medicine, which had previously been commissioned by the FDA to review the 510(k) process, released its report, in which the Institute of Medicine recommended, among other things, that the FDA forgo modifying the 510(k) process and, instead, eliminate the 510(k) process in favor of a new regulatory review framework. Although the FDA has indicated that the 510(k) process should not be eliminated, the FDA’s continued modification of the 510(k) process, together with the Institute of Medicine’s report, has created some regulatory uncertainty for the medical device industry, particularly as it relates to the time within which the FDA will conduct and complete its review of new applications.

PMA Approval Pathway

A PMA must be submitted to the FDA if the device cannot be cleared through the 510(k) process, or is not otherwise exempt from the FDA’s premarket clearance and approval requirements. A PMA must generally be supported by extensive data, including, but not limited to, technical, preclinical, clinical trials, manufacturing and labeling, to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. During the review period, the FDA will typically request additional information or clarification of the information already provided. Also, 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 our or our third-party manufacturers’ or suppliers’ manufacturing facility or facilities to ensure compliance with the QSR. Once a PMA is approved, the FDA may require that certain conditions of approval, such as conducting a post market clinical trial, be met.

New PMAs or PMA supplements are required for modifications that affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, including, for example, certain types of modifications to the device’s indication for use, manufacturing process, labeling and design. 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. We have not submitted any of our product candidates for a PMA approval. However, we may in the future develop devices that will require the approval of a PMA, or seek to add new indications for use of existing products that require the approval of a PMA. There is no guarantee that the FDA will grant PMA approval of these specific indications for use or for our future products and failure to obtain necessary approvals for our future products would adversely affect our ability to grow our business.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are generally required to support a PMA application and are sometimes required for 510(k) clearance. Such trials generally require an application for an investigational device exemption, or IDE, which is approved in advance by the FDA for a specified number of patients and study sites, unless the product is deemed a non-significant risk device eligible for more abbreviated IDE requirements. 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. Clinical trials are subject to extensive monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Clinical trials must be conducted under the oversight of an institutional review board, or IRB, for the relevant clinical trial sites and must comply with FDA regulations, including, but not limited to, those relating to good clinical practices. To conduct a clinical trial, we also are required to obtain the patient’s informed consent in a form and substance that complies with both FDA requirements and state and federal privacy and human subject protection regulations. We, the FDA or the IRB could suspend a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a belief that the risks to study

23

Table of Contents

subjects outweigh the anticipated benefits. Even if a trial is completed, the results of clinical testing may not adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the device or may otherwise not be sufficient to obtain FDA clearance or approval to market the product in the United States. Similarly, in Europe, the clinical study must be approved by a local ethics committee and in some cases, including studies with high-risk devices, by the ministry of health in the applicable country.

Pervasive and Continuing Regulation

After a device is placed on the market, numerous regulatory requirements continue to apply. In addition to the requirements below, the MDR regulations require that we report to the FDA any incident in which our products may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or in which our product malfunctioned and, if the malfunction were to recur, would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury. Additional regulatory requirements include:

As a manufacturer, we are subject to announced and unannounced inspections by the FDA to determine our compliance with FDA’s QSR and other regulations. We have not yet been inspected by the FDA. We believe that we are in compliance with QSR and other regulations.

Advertising and promotion of medical devices, in addition to being regulated by the FDA, are also regulated by the United States Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, and by state regulatory and enforcement authorities. Recently, promotional activities for FDA-regulated products of other companies have been the subject of enforcement action brought under healthcare reimbursement laws and consumer protection statutes. In addition, under the federal Lanham Act and similar state laws, competitors and others can initiate litigation relating to advertising claims. In addition, we are required to meet regulatory requirements in countries outside the United States, which can change rapidly with relatively short notice. If the FDA determines that our promotional materials or training constitutes promotion of an unapproved or uncleared use, it could request that we modify our training or promotional materials or subject us to regulatory or enforcement actions, including the issuance of an untitled letter, a warning letter, injunction, seizure, civil fine or criminal penalty. It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action if they consider our promotional or training materials to constitute

24

Table of Contents

promotion of an unapproved use, which could result in significant fines or penalties under other statutory authorities, such as laws prohibiting false claims for reimbursement. In that event, our reputation could be damaged and adoption of the products would be impaired.

Failure by us or by our third-party manufacturers and suppliers to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, which may result in sanctions including, but not limited to:

International Marketing Approvals

International sales of medical devices are subject to foreign government regulations, which vary substantially from country to country. The time required to obtain approval by a foreign country may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA clearance or approval, and the requirements may differ.

The European Union has adopted numerous directives and standards regulating the design, manufacture, clinical trials, labeling, and adverse event reporting for medical devices. Each European Union member state has implemented legislation applying these directives and standards at a national level. Other countries, such as Switzerland, have voluntarily adopted laws and regulations that mirror those of the European Union with respect to medical devices. Devices that comply with the requirements of the laws of the relevant member state applying the applicable European Union directive are entitled to bear a CE mark and, accordingly, can be distributed throughout the member states of the European Union as well as in other countries, such as Switzerland and Israel, that have mutual recognition agreements with the European Union or have adopted the European Union’s regulatory standards.

The method of assessing conformity with applicable regulatory requirements varies depending on the classification of the medical device, which may be Class I, Class IIa, Class IIb or Class III. Normally, the method involves a combination of self-assessment by the manufacturer of the safety and performance of the device, and a third-party assessment by a Notified Body, usually of the design of the device and of the manufacturer’s quality system. A Notified Body is a private commercial entity that is designated by the national government of a member state as being competent to make independent judgments about whether a device complies with applicable regulatory requirements. An assessment by a Notified Body in one country with the European Union is required in order for a manufacturer to commercially distribute the device throughout the European Union. In addition, compliance with ISO 13485 issued by the International Organization for Standardization, among other standards, establishes the presumption of conformity with the essential requirements for CE marking. Certification to the ISO 13485 standard demonstrates the presence of a quality management system that can be used by a manufacturer for design and development, production, installation and servicing of medical devices and the design, development and provision of related services.

25

Table of Contents

Healthcare Laws and Regulations

Third-Party Reimbursement

In the United States and elsewhere, healthcare providers that perform surgical procedures using medical devices such as ours generally rely on third-party payors, including governmental payors such as Medicare and Medicaid and private payors, to cover and reimburse all or part of the cost of the products. Consequently, sales of medical devices are dependent in part on the availability of reimbursement to the customer from third-party payors. The manner in which reimbursement is sought and obtained varies based upon the type of payor involved and the setting in which the product is furnished and utilized. In general, third-party payors will provide coverage and reimbursement for medically reasonable and necessary procedures and tests that utilize medical devices and may provide separate payments for the implanted or disposable devices themselves. Most payors, however, will not pay separately for capital equipment, such as our ClearPoint system. Instead, payment for the cost of using the capital equipment is considered to be covered as part of payments received for performing the procedure. In determining payment rates, third-party payors are increasingly scrutinizing the prices charged for medical products and services in comparison to other therapies. Our marketed products, and the procedures in which our marketed products will be used, may not be reimbursed by these third-party payors at rates sufficient to allow us to sell our marketed products on a competitive and profitable basis.

In addition, in many foreign markets, including the countries in the European Union, pricing of medical devices is subject to governmental control. In the United States, there have been, and we expect that there will continue to be, a number of federal and state proposals to limit payments by governmental payors for medical devices, and the procedures in which medical devices are used. While we cannot predict whether such legislative or regulatory proposals will be adopted, the adoption of such proposals could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and profitability.

Medicare and Medicaid

The Medicare program is a federal health benefit program administered by CMS that covers and pays for certain medical care items and services for eligible elderly and certain disabled individuals, and individuals with end stage renal disease. The Medicaid program is a federal-state partnership under which states receive matching federal payments to fund healthcare services for the poor. Because some private commercial health insurers and some state Medicaid programs may follow the coverage and payment policies for Medicare, Medicare’s coverage and payment policies are significant to our business. On July 30, 2008, CMS released a list of potential topics for national coverage determinations. This list included ablation for atrial fibrillation and specifically asked whether the evidence was adequate to demonstrate health benefits in patients who receive the procedure. On October 21, 2009, the Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee, or MedCAC, held a meeting on the adequacy of the available evidence for catheter ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Although CMS has not formally opened a national coverage analysis on this topic, the agency clearly is interested in the clinical evidence of atrial fibrillation treatments and any national coverage decisions it makes could have a material effect on our potential business in this area.

Medicare coverage for the procedures in which our products would be used currently exists in the hospital inpatient setting, which falls under Part A of the Medicare program. Under Medicare Part A, Medicare reimburses acute care hospitals a prospectively determined payment amount for beneficiaries receiving covered inpatient services in an acute care hospital. This method of payment is known as the prospective payment system, or PPS. Under PPS, the prospective payment for a patient’s stay in an acute care hospital is determined by the patient’s condition and other patient data and procedures performed during the inpatient stay using a classification system known as DRGs. Payments also are adjusted to reflect regional variations in labor costs, indirect medical education expenses, payments for hospitals that treat a disproportionate share of poor patients, and other factors. As of October 1, 2007, CMS implemented a revised version of the DRG system that uses 745 Medicare Severity DRGs, or MS-DRGs, instead of the approximately 540 DRGs Medicare previously used. The MS-DRGs are intended to account more accurately for the patient’s severity of illness when assigning each patient’s stay to a payment classification. Medicare pays a fixed amount to the hospital based on the MS-DRG into which the patient’s stay is classified, regardless of the actual cost to the hospital of furnishing the procedures, items and services that the patient’s condition requires. Accordingly, acute care hospitals generally do not receive direct Medicare

26

Table of Contents

reimbursement under PPS for the specific costs incurred in purchasing medical devices. Rather, reimbursement for these costs is deemed to be included within the MS-DRG-based payments made to hospitals for the services furnished to Medicare-eligible inpatients in which the devices are utilized. For cases involving unusually high costs, a hospital may receive additional “outlier” payments above the pre-determined amount. In addition, there is a mechanism by which new technology services can apply to Medicare for additional payments above the pre-determined amount, although such requests have not been granted frequently.

Because PPS payments are based on predetermined rates and may be less than a hospital’s actual costs in furnishing care, acute care hospitals have incentives to lower their inpatient operating costs by utilizing products, devices and supplies that will reduce the length of inpatient stays, decrease labor or otherwise lower their costs. For each MS-DRG, a relative weight is calculated representing the average resources required to care for cases grouped in that particular MS-DRG relative to the average resources used to treat cases in all MS-DRGs. MS-DRG relative weights are recalculated every year to reflect changes in technology and medical practice in a budget neutral manner. Under the MS-DRG payment system, there can be significant delays in obtaining adequate reimbursement amounts for hospitals for new technologies such that reimbursement may be insufficient to permit broad acceptance by hospitals.

In addition to payments to hospitals for procedures using our technology, Medicare makes separate payments to physicians for their professional services. The American Medical Association, or AMA, has developed a coding system known as the Current Procedural Terminology, or CPT, codes, which have been adopted by the Medicare program to describe and develop payment amounts for certain physician services.

The Medicare physician fee schedule uses CPT codes (and other codes) as part of the determination of allowable payment amounts to physicians. In determining appropriate payment amounts for surgeons, CMS receives guidance from the AMA regarding the relative technical skill level, level of resources used, and complexity of a new surgical procedure. Generally, the designation of a new procedure code for a new procedure using a new product does not occur until after FDA clearance or approval of the product used in the procedure. Codes are assigned by either the AMA (for CPT codes) or CMS (for Medicare-specific codes) and new codes usually become effective on January 1st of each year.

One result of the current Medicare payment system, which is also utilized by most non-governmental third-party payors, is that a patient’s treating physician orders a particular service and the hospital (or other facility in which the procedure is performed) bears the cost of delivery of the service. Hospitals have limited ability to align their financial interests with that of the treating physician because Medicare law generally prohibits hospitals from paying physicians to assist in controlling the costs of hospital services, including paying physicians to limit or reduce services to Medicare beneficiaries even if such services are medically unnecessary. As a result, hospitals have traditionally stocked supplies and products requested by physicians and have had limited ability to restrict physician choice of products and services.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enacted on March 23, 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 enacted on March 30, 2010, or, together, the Health Care Reform Law, includes a number of provisions that will likely result in more coordination between hospitals and physicians resulting in the alignment of financial incentives between hospitals and physicians to control hospital costs. Most significantly, the Health Care Reform Law provides for the establishment of a Medicare shared savings program, which goes into effect in 2012, whereby Medicare will share certain savings realized in the delivery of services to Medicare beneficiaries with accountable care organizations, which may be organized through various different legal structures between hospitals and physicians. Other payment reform provisions in the Health Care Reform Law include pay-for-performance initiatives, payment bundling and the establishment of an independent payment advisory board. We expect that the overall result of such payment reform initiatives and increased coordination among hospitals and physicians will be voluntary reductions in the array of choices currently available to physicians with respect to diagnostic services, medical supplies and equipment. Such a reduction in physician choices may also result in hospitals reducing their overall number of vendors from which they purchase supplies, equipment and products. The Health Care Reform Law could substantially change how health care is developed and delivered in the United States, and may materially impact many aspects of our business and operations, including limiting the acceptance and availability of our products.

27

Table of Contents

Among other things, the Health Care Reform Law will ultimately increase the overall pool of persons with access to health insurance in the United States. Although such an increase in covered lives should ultimately benefit hospitals, the Health Care Reform Law, also includes a number of cuts in Medicare reimbursement to hospitals that may take effect prior to hospitals’ realizing the financial benefit of a larger pool of insured persons. Such cuts in Medicare reimbursement could adversely impact the operations and finances of hospitals reducing their ability to purchase medical devices such as our products. Further, Congress has yet to address in a comprehensive and permanent manner the pending reduction in Medicare payments to physicians under the sustainable growth rate formula, which if not resolved, will likely result in an overall reduction of physicians willing to participate in Medicare.

Commercial Insurers

In addition to the Medicare program, many private payors look to CMS policies as a guideline in setting their coverage policies and payment amounts. The current coverage policies of these private payors may differ from the Medicare program, and the payment rates they make may be higher, lower, or the same as the Medicare program. If CMS or other agencies decrease or limit reimbursement payments for doctors and hospitals, this may affect coverage and reimbursement determinations by many private payors. Additionally, some private payors do not follow the Medicare guidelines, and those payors may reimburse only a portion of the costs associated with the use of our products, or none at all.

Fraud and Abuse Laws

Because of the significant federal funding involved in Medicare and Medicaid, Congress and the states have enacted, and actively enforce, a number of laws whose purpose is to eliminate fraud and abuse in federal healthcare programs. Our business is subject to compliance with these laws.

Anti-Kickback Laws

In the United States, there are federal and state anti-kickback laws that generally prohibit the payment or receipt of kickbacks, bribes or other remuneration in exchange for the referral of patients or other health-related business. The United States federal healthcare programs’ Anti-Kickback Statute makes it unlawful for individuals or entities knowingly and willfully to solicit, offer, receive or pay any kickback, bribe or other remuneration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for or to induce the purchase, lease or order, or arranging for or recommending purchasing, leasing, or ordering, any good, facility, service, or item for which payment may be made in whole or in part under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare or Medicaid. The Anti-Kickback Statute covers “any remuneration,” which has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including for example gifts, certain discounts, the furnishing of free supplies, equipment or services, credit arrangements, payments of cash and waivers of payments. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the arrangement can be found to violate the statute. Penalties for violations include criminal penalties and civil sanctions such as fines, imprisonment and possible exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs. In addition, several courts have permitted kickback cases brought under the Federal False Claims Act to proceed, as discussed in more detail below.

Because the Anti-Kickback Statute is broadly written and encompasses many harmless or efficient arrangements, Congress authorized the Office of Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or OIG, to issue a series of regulations, known as “safe harbors.” For example, there are regulatory safe harbors for payments to bona fide employees, properly reported discounts, and payments for certain investment interests. Although an arrangement that fits into one or more of these exceptions or safe harbors is immune from prosecution, arrangements that do not fit squarely within an exception or safe harbor do not necessarily violate the statute. The failure of a transaction or arrangement to fit precisely within one or more of the exceptions or safe harbors does not necessarily mean that it is illegal or that prosecution will be pursued. However, conduct and business arrangements that arguably implicate the Anti-Kickback Statute but do not fully satisfy all the elements of an exception or safe harbor may be subject to increased scrutiny by government enforcement authorities such as the OIG. The Health Care Reform Law increases the investigatory authority of the OIG, clarifies that Anti-Kickback Statute claims can be brought under the federal civil False Claims Act, and provides for enhanced civil monetary penalties and expanded permissible exclusion authority.

28

Table of Contents

Many states have laws that implicate anti-kickback restrictions similar to the Anti-Kickback Statute. Some of these state prohibitions apply regardless of whether federal healthcare program business is involved such as for self-pay or private pay patients.

Government officials have focused their enforcement efforts on marketing of healthcare services and products, among other activities, and recently have brought cases against companies, and certain sales, marketing and executive personnel, for allegedly offering unlawful inducements to potential or existing customers in an attempt to procure their business.

Federal Civil False Claims Act and State False Claims Laws

The federal civil False Claims Act imposes liability on any person or entity who, among other things, knowingly and willfully presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment by a federal healthcare program, including Medicare and Medicaid. The “qui tam,” or “whistleblower,” provisions of the False Claims Act allow a private individual to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging that the defendant has submitted a false claim to the federal government, and to share in any monetary recovery. In recent years, the number of suits brought against healthcare providers by private individuals has increased dramatically. Medical device companies, like us, can be held liable under false claims laws, even if they do not submit claims to the government where they are deemed to have caused submission of false claims by, among other things, providing incorrect coding or billing advice about their products to customers that file claims, or by engaging in kickback arrangements with customers that file claims.

The False Claims Act also has been used to assert liability on the basis of misrepresentations with respect to the services rendered and in connection with alleged off-label promotion of products. Our future activities relating to the manner in which we sell our products and document our prices such as the reporting of discount and rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement of our products, and the sale and marketing of our products, may be subject to scrutiny under these laws.

The Health Care Reform Law is likely to increase the number of cases asserting civil False Claims Act violations since it removes a significant defense to such claims and clarifies that a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute or retention of a federal healthcare program overpayment are actionable under the civil False Claims Act.

When an entity is determined to have violated the False Claims Act, it may be required to pay up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus civil penalties of between $5,500 to $11,000 for each separate false claim. There are many potential bases for liability under the False Claims Act. A number of states have enacted false claim laws analogous to the federal civil False Claims Act and many of these state laws apply where a claim is submitted to any state or private third-party payor. In this environment, our engagement of physician consultants in product development and product training and education could subject us to similar scrutiny. We are unable to predict whether we would be subject to actions under the False Claims Act or a similar state law, or the impact of such actions. However, the costs of defending such claims, as well as any sanctions imposed, could significantly affect our financial performance.

HIPAA Fraud and Other Regulations

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created a class of federal crimes known as the “federal health care offenses,” including healthcare fraud and false statements relating to healthcare matters. The HIPAA healthcare fraud statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme or artifice to defraud any healthcare benefit program, or to obtain by means of false of fraudulent pretenses, any money under the control of any healthcare benefit program, including private payors. A violation of this statute is a felony and may result in fines, imprisonment and/or exclusion from government-sponsored programs. The Health Care Reform Law also provides for civil monetary penalties for knowingly participating in certain federal healthcare offenses and enhances sentences under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for such offenses. The HIPAA false statements statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully

29

Table of Contents

falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. A violation of this statute is a felony and may result in fines and/or imprisonment. Entities that are found to have aided or abetted in a violation of the HIPAA federal health care offenses are deemed by statute to have committed the offense and are punishable as a principal.

We are also subject to the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar anti-bribery laws applicable in non-United States jurisdictions that generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to non-United States government officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Because of the predominance of government sponsored healthcare systems around the world, most of our customer relationships outside of the United States will be with governmental entities and therefore subject to such anti-bribery laws.

HIPAA and Other Privacy & Security Laws

As a part of HIPAA, Congress enacted the Administrative Simplification provisions, which are designed to require the establishment of uniform standards governing the conduct of certain electronic healthcare transactions and protecting the security and privacy of individually identifiable health information maintained or transmitted by healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses, which are referred to as “covered entities.” Several regulations have been promulgated under HIPAA’s regulations including: the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, or the Privacy Rule, which restricts the use and disclosure of certain individually identifiable health information, the Standards for Electronic Transactions, which establishes standards for common healthcare transactions, such as claims information, plan eligibility, payment information and the use of electronic signatures, and the Security Standards for the Protection of Electronic Protected Health Information, or the Security Rule, which requires covered entities to implement and maintain certain security measures to safeguard certain electronic health information. Although we do not believe we are a covered entity and therefore are not currently directly subject to these standards, we expect that our customers generally will be covered entities and may ask us to contractually comply with certain aspects of these standards by entering into business associate agreements, when appropriate. While the government intended this legislation to reduce administrative expenses and burdens for the healthcare industry, our compliance with certain provisions of these standards entails significant costs for us.

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or the HITECH Act, which was enacted in February 2009, strengthens and expands the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and the restrictions on use and disclosure of patient identifiable health information. HITECH also fundamentally changed a business associate’s obligations by imposing a number of Privacy Rule requirements and a majority of Security Rule provisions directly on business associates that were previously only directly applicable to covered entities. HITECH includes, but is not limited to, prohibitions on exchanging patient identifiable health information for remuneration (directly or indirectly), restrictions on marketing to individuals and obligations to agree to provide individuals an accounting of virtually all disclosures of their health information. Moreover, HITECH requires covered entities to report any unauthorized use or disclosure of patient identifiable health information that compromises the security or privacy of the information, known as a breach, to the affected individuals, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, and depending on the size of any such breach, the media for the affected market. Business associates are similarly required to notify covered entities of a breach. Most of the HITECH provisions became effective in February 2010 and was expected that the HHS would final regulations to implement many of the new provisions in 2011. Those regulations have not yet been released. HHS has already issued regulations governing breach notification which were effective in September 2009.

HITECH has increased civil penalty amounts for violations of HIPAA by either covered entities or business associates up to an annual maximum of $1.5 million for uncorrected violations based on willful neglect. Imposition of these penalties is more likely now because HITECH significantly strengthens enforcement. It requires HHS to conduct periodic audits to confirm compliance and to investigate any violation that involves willful neglect. Additionally, state attorneys general are authorized to bring civil actions seeking either injunctions or damages in response to violations of HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules that threaten the privacy of state residents. HHS held training sessions on the HIPAA rules and enforcement for state attorneys general in the spring of 2011.

30

Table of Contents

In addition to federal regulations issued under HIPAA, some states have enacted privacy and security statutes or regulations that, in some cases, are more stringent than those issued under HIPAA. In those cases, it may be necessary to modify our planned operations and procedures to comply with the more stringent state laws. If we fail to comply with applicable state laws and regulations, we could be subject to additional sanctions. Further, the majority of states have enacted state data breach laws, which also require notification of certain alleged breaches of the privacy or security of personal information.

Federal and state consumer protection laws are being applied increasingly by the FTC and state attorneys general to regulate the collection, use, storage and disclosure of personal or patient information, through websites or otherwise, and to regulate the presentation of web site content. Courts may also adopt the standards for fair information practices promulgated by the FTC, which concern consumer notice, choice, security and access. Numerous other countries have or are developing laws governing the collection, use, disclosure and transmission of personal or patient information.

HIPAA as well as other federal and state laws apply to our receipt of patient identifiable health information in connection with research and clinical trials. We collaborate with other individuals and entities in conducting research and all involved parties must comply with applicable laws. Therefore, the compliance of the physicians, hospitals or other providers or entities with which we collaborate also impacts our business.

Employees

As of January 31, 2012, we had 22 full time employees, of whom eight were engaged in research and development, five in manufacturing, four in sales and marketing and five in general administrative and finance functions. None of our employees is covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and we consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

We have incurred significant losses since our inception and anticipate that we may continue to incur significant losses. If we fail to generate significant revenue from sales of our products, we may never achieve or sustain profitability.

As of September 30, 2011, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $57,933,000. The accumulated deficit has resulted principally from costs incurred in our research and development efforts and general operating expenses. We have incurred significant losses in each year since our inception in 1998. Net losses were approximately $6,456,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, approximately $9,454,000 for the year ended December 31, 2010, approximately $7,159,000 for the year ended December 31, 2009, and approximately $5,430,000 for the year ended December 31, 2008. We may continue to incur significant operating losses as we continue to invest capital in the sales and marketing of our products, development of our product candidates and our business generally. We also expect that our general and administrative expenses will increase due to additional operational and regulatory burdens associated with operating as a public company.

As a result of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing medical devices, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if at all. Our profitability will depend on revenues from the sale of our products. We cannot provide any assurance that we will ever achieve profitability and, even if we achieve profitability, that we will be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Further, because of our limited commercialization history, we have limited insight into the trends that may emerge and affect our business. We may make errors in predicting and reacting to relevant business trends, which could harm our business and financial condition. Any failure to achieve and maintain profitability would continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital and or cause us to cease operations.

Our ClearPoint system may not achieve market acceptance or be commercially successful.

We expect sales of our ClearPoint system will account for the vast majority of our revenues for at least the next several years. Our ClearPoint system may not gain market acceptance unless we convince physicians, hospitals and patients of its benefits. Moreover, even if physicians and hospitals understand the benefits of our ClearPoint system, they still may elect not to use our ClearPoint system for a variety of reasons, including:

31

Table of Contents

If physicians and hospitals do not perceive our ClearPoint system as an attractive alternative to other products and procedures, we will not achieve significant market penetration or be able to generate significant revenues. To the extent that our ClearPoint system is not commercially successful or is withdrawn from the market for any reason, our revenues will be adversely impacted and our business, operating results and financial condition will be harmed.

If hospitals and physicians are unable to obtain adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for procedures utilizing our ClearPoint system, our revenues and prospects for profitability will suffer.

Our ClearPoint system components are purchased primarily by hospitals, which bill various third-party payors, including governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare, and private insurance plans, for procedures in which our ClearPoint system is used. Reimbursement is a significant factor considered by hospitals in determining whether to acquire new medical devices such as our ClearPoint system. Therefore, our ability to successfully commercialize our ClearPoint system depends significantly on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from these third-party payors.

Medicare pays hospitals a prospectively determined amount for inpatient operating costs. The prospective payment for a patient’s stay is determined by the patient’s condition and other patient data and procedures performed during the inpatient stay using a classification system known as Medical Severity Diagnosis Related Groups, or MS-DRGs. Medicare pays a fixed amount to the hospital based on the MS-DRG into which the patient’s stay is assigned, regardless of the actual cost to the hospital of furnishing the procedures, items and services provided. Therefore, a hospital must absorb the cost of our products as part of the payment it receives for the procedure in which the product is used. In addition, physicians that perform procedures in hospitals are paid a set amount by Medicare for performing such services under the Medicare physician fee schedule. Medicare payment rates for both systems are established annually.

We do not know if hospitals will consider third-party reimbursement levels adequate to cover the cost of our ClearPoint system. Furthermore, we do not know if physicians will consider third-party reimbursement levels adequate to compensate them for performing the procedures in which our products are used. Failure by hospitals and physicians to receive an amount that they consider to be adequate reimbursement for procedures in which our products are used will deter them from purchasing or using our products and limit our sales growth.

One result of the current Medicare payment system, which is also utilized by most non-governmental third-party payors, is that a patient’s treating physician orders a particular service and the hospital (or other facility in which the procedure is performed) bears the cost of delivery of the service. Hospitals have limited ability to align their financial interests with those of the treating physician because Medicare law generally prohibits hospitals from paying physicians to assist in controlling the costs of hospital services, including paying physicians to limit or reduce services to Medicare beneficiaries even if such services are medically unnecessary. As a result, hospitals have traditionally stocked supplies and products requested by physicians and have had limited ability to restrict physician choice of products and services.

32

Table of Contents

The Health Care Reform Law includes a number of provisions that will likely result in more coordination between hospitals and physicians resulting in the alignment of financial incentives between hospitals and physicians to control hospital costs. Most significantly, the Health Care Reform Law provides for the establishment of a Medicare shared savings program, which goes into effect in 2012, whereby Medicare will share certain savings realized in the delivery of services to Medicare beneficiaries with accountable care organizations, which may be organized through various different legal structures between hospitals and physicians. Other payment reform provisions in the Health Care Reform Law include pay-for-performance initiatives, payment bundling and the establishment of an independent payment advisory board. We expect that the overall result of such payment reform efforts and the increased coordination among hospitals and physicians will be voluntary reductions in the array of choices currently available to physicians with respect to diagnostic services, medical supplies and equipment. Such a reduction in physician choices may also result in hospitals reducing the overall number of vendors from which they purchase supplies, equipment and products. The Health Care Reform Law may limit the acceptance and availability of our products, which could have an adverse effect on our financial results and business.

If there are changes in coverage or reimbursement from third-party payors, our revenues and prospects for profitability will suffer.

In the United States, we believe that existing billing codes apply to procedures using our ClearPoint system. Reimbursement levels for procedures using our ClearPoint system or any product that we may market in the future could be decreased or eliminated as a result of future legislation, regulation or reimbursement policies of third-party payors. Any such decrease or elimination would adversely affect the demand for our ClearPoint system or any product that we may market in the future and our ability to sell our products on a profitable basis. For example, on July 30, 2008, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the federal agency that administers the Medicare Program, released a list of potential topics for national coverage determinations. This list included ablation for atrial fibrillation and specifically asked whether the evidence was adequate to demonstrate health benefits in patients who receive the procedure. On October 21, 2009, the Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee held a meeting on the adequacy of the available evidence for catheter ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Although CMS has not formally opened a national coverage analysis on this topic, the agency has shown that it is interested in the clinical evidence of atrial fibrillation treatments and any national coverage decisions it makes could have a material effect on the ClearTrace system and our potential business in this area. Furthermore, if procedures using our ClearPoint system gain market acceptance and the number of these procedures increases, CMS, as well as other public or private payors, may establish new billing codes for those procedures that provide for a lower reimbursement amount than traditional approaches, which would adversely affect our financial results and business.

Among other things, the Health Care Reform Law will ultimately increase the overall pool of persons with access to health insurance in the United States. Although such an increase in covered lives should ultimately benefit hospitals, the Health Care Reform Law also includes a number of cuts in Medicare reimbursement to hospitals that may take effect prior to the time hospitals realize the financial benefit of a larger pool of insured persons. Those cuts in Medicare reimbursement could adversely impact the operations and finances of hospitals, reducing their ability to purchase medical devices, such as our products. Further, Congress has not yet addressed in a comprehensive and permanent manner the pending reduction in Medicare payments to physicians under the sustainable growth rate formula, which if not resolved will likely result in an overall reduction in physicians willing to participate in Medicare.

If third-party payors deny coverage or reimbursement for procedures using our ClearPoint system, our revenues and prospects for profitability will suffer.

Notwithstanding its regulatory clearance in the United States, third-party payors may deny coverage or reimbursement if the payor determines that the use of our ClearPoint system is unnecessary, inappropriate, experimental, not cost-effective, or is used for a non-approved indication. In addition, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for medical technology exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for medical technology can differ significantly from payor to payor. Any denial of coverage or reimbursement for procedures using our ClearPoint system could have an adverse effect on our business, financial results and prospects for profitability.

33

Table of Contents

We have limited internal manufacturing resources, and if we unable to provide an adequate supply of our ClearPoint disposable products, our growth could be limited and our business could be harmed.

Final assembly of many of our ClearPoint disposable components occurs at our Irvine, California facility. If our facility experiences a disruption, we would have no other means of assembling those components until we are able to restore the manufacturing capability at our current facility or develop the same capability at an alternative facility.

In connection with the continued commercialization of our ClearPoint system, we expect that we will need to increase, or “scale up,” the production process of our disposable components over the current level of production. Manufacturers often encounter difficulties in scaling up production, such as problems involving yields, quality control and assurance, and shortages of qualified personnel. If the scaled-up production process is not efficient or produces a product that does not meet quality and other standards, we may be unable to meet market demand and our revenues, business and financial prospects would be adversely affected.

Our reliance on single-source suppliers could harm our ability to meet demand for our ClearPoint system in a timely manner or within budget.

Many of the components and component assemblies of our ClearPoint system are currently provided to us by single-source suppliers. We generally purchase components and component assemblies through purchase orders rather than long-term supply agreements and generally do not maintain large volumes of inventory. While alternative suppliers exist and have been identified, the disruption or termination of the supply of components and component assemblies could cause a significant increase in the cost of these components, which could affect our operating results. Our dependence on a limited number of third-party suppliers and the challenges we may face in obtaining adequate supplies involve several risks, including limited control over pricing, availability, quality and delivery schedules. A disruption or termination in the supply of components could also result in our inability to meet demand for our ClearPoint system, which could harm our ability to generate revenues, lead to customer dissatisfaction and damage our reputation. Furthermore, if we are required to change the supplier of a key component or component assembly of our ClearPoint system, we may be required to verify that the new supplier maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines. The delays associated with the verification of a new supplier could delay our ability to manufacture our ClearPoint system in a timely manner or within budget.

If we are unable to expand our sales and marketing capabilities, we may be unable to generate material product revenues.

We have limited experience in the sales and marketing of medical devices. Currently, our sales and marketing efforts for our ClearPoint system are being coordinated primarily by our Vice President, Sales, our Vice President, Product Management and our two Clinical Engineering Managers. We expect to continue building a small, highly focused sales force to market our ClearPoint system products in the United States. That effort, though, could take longer than we anticipate, in which case our commercialization efforts would be delayed. Our distribution relationship with Brainlab significantly expands our sales and marketing capabilities for the ClearPoint system. However, for ClearPoint products that Brainlab sells, our revenues will be lower than if we sell the ClearPoint products ourselves. Likewise, there is no assurance that Brainlab will be successful in marketing and selling our ClearPoint system. Under our agreement, Brainlab is not subject to any minimum sales or other performance requirements.

If we fail to obtain regulatory approval for our ClearPoint system in additional foreign jurisdictions, we will not be able to expand the commercialization of our products abroad.

We obtained CE marking approval for our ClearPoint system in February 2011, which enables us to market the ClearPoint system in the European Union. To sell our ClearPoint system in other foreign jurisdictions, we will have to obtain separate regulatory approvals from those foreign jurisdictions as well. The regulatory approval process varies among jurisdictions and can involve substantial additional testing. Clearance or approval by the FDA does not ensure clearance or approval by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions, and clearance or approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure clearance or approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign

34

Table of Contents

jurisdictions. The foreign regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA clearance or approval in addition to other risks. In addition, the time required to obtain foreign clearance or approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA clearance or approval and we may not obtain foreign regulatory clearances or approvals on a timely basis, if at all. We may not be able to file for regulatory clearance or approval and may not receive necessary clearance or approval to commercialize our ClearPoint system in any additional foreign market, either of which would preclude sale of our ClearPoint system outside the United States other than in the European Union.

Our business will be subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with international operations.

We have CE marking approval to market our ClearPoint system in the European Union, which subjects us to rules and regulations in the European Union relating to our products. As part of our product development and regulatory strategy, we also intend to market our ClearPoint system in other foreign jurisdictions. There are a number of risks associated with conducting business internationally, including:

Any of these risks could adversely affect our financial results and our ability to operate outside the United States, which could harm our business.

The Health Care Reform Law and other payment and policy changes may have a material adverse effect on us.

In addition to the reimbursement changes discussed above, the Health Care Reform Law will also impose a 2.3% excise tax on the sale of any taxable human medical device after December 31, 2012, subject to certain exclusions, by the manufacturer, producer or importer of such devices. The total cost to the industry is expected to be approximately $20 billion over ten years. This new and significant tax burden could have a material negative impact on the results of our operations and the operations of our strategic partners. Further, the Health Care Reform Law encourages hospitals and physicians to work collaboratively through shared savings programs, such as accountable care organizations, as well as other bundled payment initiatives, which may ultimately result in the reduction of medical device acquisitions and the consolidation of medical device suppliers used by hospitals. While passage of the Health Care Reform Law may ultimately expand the pool of potential end-users of our ClearPoint system, the above-discussed changes could adversely affect our financial results and business.

Further, with the increase in demand for healthcare services, we expect both a strain on the capacity of the healthcare system and more proposals by legislators, regulators and third-party payors to keep healthcare costs down. Certain proposals, if passed, could impose limitations on the prices we will be able to charge for our ClearPoint system, or the amounts of reimbursement available from governmental agencies or third-party payors. These limitations could have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.

35

Table of Contents

Various healthcare reform proposals have also emerged at the state level. We cannot predict what healthcare initiatives, if any, will be implemented at the federal or state level, or the effect any future legislation or regulation will have on us. However, an expansion in government’s role in the United States healthcare industry may lower reimbursements for our ClearPoint system, reduce medical procedure volumes and adversely affect our business, possibly materially.

Our future success depends on our ability to obtain regulatory clearances or approvals for the ClearTrace system. We cannot be certain that we will be able to do so in a timely fashion, or at all.

We do not have the necessary regulatory clearances or approvals to market the ClearTrace system in the United States or in any foreign market. In the United States, without FDA clearances or approvals, we cannot market a new medical device, or a new use of, or claim for, or significant modification to, an existing product, unless an exemption applies. To obtain FDA clearance or approval, we must first receive either premarket clearance under Section 510(k) of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or approval of a PMA from the FDA.

In the 510(k) clearance process, the FDA must determine that a proposed device is “substantially equivalent” to a device legally on the market, known as a “predicate” device, with respect to intended use, technology, safety and effectiveness, in order to clear the proposed device for marketing. Clinical data is sometimes required to support substantial equivalence. The 510(k) clearance process generally takes three to twelve months from submission, but can take significantly longer.

The process of obtaining PMA approval is much more costly and uncertain than the 510(k) clearance process. The PMA approval process can be lengthy and expensive and requires an applicant to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the device based, in part, on data obtained in clinical trials. The PMA process generally takes one to three years, or even longer, from the time the PMA application is submitted to the FDA until an approval is obtained.

Outside the United States, the regulatory approval process varies among jurisdictions and can involve substantial additional testing. Clearance or approval by the FDA does not ensure clearance or approval by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions, and clearance or approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure clearance or approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign jurisdictions. The foreign regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA clearance or approval in addition to other risks. In addition, the time required to obtain foreign clearance or approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA clearance or approval and we may not obtain foreign regulatory clearances or approvals on a timely basis, if at all. We may not be able to file for regulatory clearance or approval and may not receive necessary clearance or approval to commercialize a product candidate in any foreign market, either of which would preclude sale of that product candidate in foreign jurisdictions.

The ClearTrace system is still under development. We have not made any regulatory filings with the FDA or any foreign regulatory authority with respect to that system. We anticipate that the initial market for the ClearTrace system will be the European Union and we plan to seek CE marking approval for the ClearTrace system, although there can be no assurance that we will receive CE marking approval. To date, we have been conducting animal studies and other preclinical work with respect to the ClearTrace system. The ClearTrace system consists of several components, including an ablation catheter. The FDA has determined that ablation catheters specifically indicated to treat atrial fibrillation require the submission of a PMA. Therefore, in the United States, we will be required to pursue the PMA process in order to specifically indicate our ablation catheter for the treatment of atrial fibrillation.

The FDA or any applicable foreign authority may not act favorably or quickly in its review of any regulatory submission that we may file. Additionally, we may encounter significant difficulties and costs in obtaining clearances or approvals. If we are unable to obtain regulatory clearances or approvals for the ClearTrace system, or otherwise experience delays in obtaining regulatory clearances or approvals, the commercialization of the ClearTrace system will be delayed or prevented, which will adversely affect our ability to generate revenues. Such delay may also result in the loss of potential competitive advantages that might otherwise be attained by bringing products to market earlier than competitors. Any of these contingencies could adversely affect our business. Even if cleared or approved, the ClearTrace system may not be cleared or approved for the indications that are necessary or desirable for successful commercialization.

36

Table of Contents

To the extent we seek a new indication for use of, or new claims for, our ClearPoint system, the FDA may not grant 510(k) clearance or PMA approval of such new use or claims, which may affect our ability to grow our business.

We received 510(k) clearance to market our ClearPoint system for use in general neurological interventional procedures. In the future, we may seek to obtain additional, more specific indications for use of our ClearPoint system beyond the general neurological intervention claim. Some of these expanded claims could require FDA 510(k) clearance. Other claims could require FDA approval of a PMA. Moreover, some specific ClearPoint system claims that we may seek may require clinical trials to support regulatory clearance or approval, and we may not successfully complete or have the funds to initiate these clinical trials. The FDA may not clear or approve these future claims or future generations of our ClearPoint system for the indications that are necessary or desirable for successful commercialization. Indeed, the FDA may refuse our requests for 510(k) clearance or PMA approval. Failure to receive clearance or approval for additional claims for our ClearPoint system could have an adverse effect on our ability to expand our business.

Clinical trials necessary to support 510(k) clearance or PMA approval for the ClearTrace system or any new indications for use for our ClearPoint system will be expensive and may require the enrollment of large numbers of suitable patients, who may be difficult to identify and recruit. Delays or failures in our clinical trials will prevent us from commercializing any modified or new product candidates and will adversely affect our business, operating results and prospects.

Initiating and completing clinical trials necessary to support a PMA for the ClearTrace system or any other product candidates that we may develop, or additional safety and efficacy data that the FDA may require for 510(k) clearance or PMA approval for any new specific indications of our ClearPoint system that we may seek, will be time consuming and expensive with an uncertain outcome. Moreover, the results of early clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results, and any product candidate we advance into clinical trials may not have favorable results in later clinical trials.

Conducting successful clinical trials may require the enrollment of large numbers of patients, and suitable patients may be difficult to identify and recruit. Patient enrollment in clinical trials and completion of patient participation and follow-up depends on many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the trial protocol, the attractiveness of, or the discomforts and risks associated with, the treatments received by enrolled subjects, the availability of appropriate clinical trial investigators and support staff, the proximity to clinical sites of patients that are able to comply with the eligibility and exclusion criteria for participation in the clinical trial, and patient compliance. 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 effectiveness of our product candidates or if they determine that the treatments received under the trial protocols are not attractive or involve unacceptable risks or discomforts. In addition, patients participating in clinical trials may die before completion of the trial or suffer adverse medical events unrelated to our product candidates.

Development of sufficient and appropriate clinical protocols to demonstrate safety and efficacy will be required and we may not adequately develop such protocols to support clearance or approval. Further, the FDA may require us to submit data on a greater number of patients than we originally anticipated and/or for a longer follow-up period or change the data collection requirements or data analysis applicable to our clinical trials. Delays in patient enrollment or failure of patients to continue to participate in a clinical trial may cause an increase in costs and delays in the approval and attempted commercialization of our product candidates or result in the failure of the clinical trial. Such increased costs and delays or failures could adversely affect our business, operating results and prospects.

37

Table of Contents

If the third parties on which we may need to rely to conduct any clinical trials and to assist us with pre-clinical development do not perform as contractually required or expected, we may not be able to obtain regulatory clearance or approval for the ClearTrace system or any additional claims that we may seek for our ClearPoint system.

We do not have the independent ability to conduct pre-clinical and clinical trials. To the extent that we will need to conduct such trials, we will need to rely on third parties, such as contract research organizations, medical institutions, clinical investigators and contract laboratories, to conduct such trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or regulatory obligations or meet expected deadlines, if these third parties need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our pre-clinical development activities or clinical trials may be extended, delayed, suspended or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory clearance or approval for a product candidate or additional claims we may seek for our products on a timely basis, if at all. As such, our business, operating results and prospects may be adversely affected. Furthermore, our third-party clinical trial investigators may be delayed in conducting our clinical trials for reasons outside of their control.

The results of our clinical trials may not support our product candidate claims or any additional claims we may seek for our products and may result in the discovery of adverse side effects.

Even if any clinical trial that we need to undertake is completed as planned, we cannot be certain that its results will support our product candidate claims or any new indications that we may seek for our products or that the FDA or foreign authorities will agree with our conclusions regarding the results of those trials. The clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our products or a product candidate is safe and effective for the proposed indicated use, which could cause us to stop seeking additional clearances or approvals for our ClearPoint system, abandon the ClearTrace system or delay development of other product candidates. Any delay or termination of our clinical trials will delay the filing of our regulatory submissions and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize a product candidate. It is also possible that patients enrolled in clinical trials will experience adverse side effects that are not currently part of the product candidate’s profile.

The markets for medical devices are highly competitive and we may not be able to compete effectively against the larger, well-established companies in our markets or emerging and small innovative companies that may seek to obtain or increase their share of the market.

We will face competition from products and techniques already in existence in the marketplace. The markets for the ClearPoint system and the ClearTrace system are intensely competitive, and many of our competitors are much larger and have substantially more financial and human resources than we do. Many have long histories and strong reputations within the industry, and a relatively small number of companies dominate these markets. Examples of such large, well-known companies include Biosense Webster Inc., a division of Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Inc. and St. Jude Medical Inc.

These companies enjoy significant competitive advantages over us, including:

38

Table of Contents

We may not succeed in overcoming the competitive advantages of these large and established companies. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These companies may introduce products that compete effectively against our products in terms of performance, price or both.

We could become subject to product liability claims that could be expensive, divert management’s attention and harm our business.

Our business exposes us to potential product liability risks that are inherent in the manufacturing, marketing and sale of medical devices. We may be held liable if our products cause injury or death or are found otherwise unsuitable or defective during usage. Our ClearPoint system and the ClearTrace system incorporate mechanical and electrical parts, complex computer software and other sophisticated components, any of which can have defective or inferior parts or contain defects, errors or failures. Complex computer software is particularly vulnerable to errors and failures, especially when first introduced.

Because our ClearPoint system and the ClearTrace system are designed to be used to perform complex surgical procedures, defects could result in a number of complications, some of which could be serious and could harm or kill patients. The adverse publicity resulting from any of these events could cause physicians or hospitals to review and potentially terminate their relationships with us.

The medical device industry has historically been subject to extensive litigation over product liability claims. A product liability claim, regardless of its merit or eventual outcome, could result in significant legal defense costs. Although we maintain product liability insurance, the coverage is subject to deductibles and limitations, and may not be adequate to cover future claims. Additionally, we may be unable to maintain our existing product liability insurance in the future at satisfactory rates or in adequate amounts. A product liability claim, regardless of its merit or eventual outcome could result in:

We may not realize the anticipated benefits from our collaborative agreement with Siemens regarding the ClearTrace system.

We have entered into a co-development agreement with Siemens to develop the hardware and MRI software necessary for the ClearTrace system. There can be no assurance that our co-development efforts will be successful or that we will complete development of the ClearTrace system hardware and MRI software. Under our agreement,

39

Table of Contents

Siemens is responsible for developing the software for the ClearTrace system, and we are responsible for developing the catheters and other hardware, other than the MRI scanner and workstation. The co-development agreement requires us to pay Siemens up to approximately $2,500,000 for Siemens’ successful development of the software in accordance with our specifications. As of September 30, 2011, we have paid Siemens $800,000 and, in addition, we have accrued payables of approximately $574,000. Once the software for the ClearTrace system is commercially available, Siemens will pay us a fixed amount for each software license sold by Siemens until we recoup our investment in the software. However, if Siemens does not successfully commercialize the software, or if our agreement with Siemens is terminated, we may not recover our investment in the software.

We may not realize the anticipated benefits from our license and development agreements with Boston Scientific.

We entered into license and development agreements with Boston Scientific with respect to our MRI-safety technologies. We are working with Boston Scientific to incorporate our MRI-safety technologies into Boston Scientific’s implantable medical leads for cardiac and neuromodulation applications. There is no assurance that our joint development efforts will be successful or that patents will issue on any patent applications we licensed to Boston Scientific, in which case we would not receive future milestone payments or royalties provided for under our agreements with Boston Scientific. Further, Boston Scientific has no obligation to include our licensed intellectual property in its product candidates. Even if Boston Scientific incorporates our licensed intellectual property into its product candidates, Boston Scientific may be unable to obtain regulatory clearance or approval or successfully commercialize the related products, in which case we would not receive royalties in the amounts that we currently anticipate.

Risks Related to our Need for Financing

We may not be able to continue operations as a going concern and our stockholders may lose their entire investment in us.

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $70,000 and $1,577,000, respectively, and stockholders’ deficit of approximately $20,547,000 and $15,337,000, respectively. In addition, we had a net loss for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 of approximately $6,456,000 and a net loss for the year ended December 31, 2010 of approximately $9,454,000.

As discussed in the notes to our financial statements included elsewhere in this registration statement, our cumulative net loss since inception and the net losses we incurred in 2010, 2009 and 2008 raise substantial doubt that we will be able to continue operations as a going concern. Our independent auditors included an explanatory paragraph regarding the uncertainty of whether we will be able to continue operations as a going concern in their report on our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2010. Our ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon us generating cash flow sufficient to fund operations and reducing operating expenses. Our business plans may not be successful in addressing these issues. If we cannot continue as a going concern, our stockholders may lose their entire investment in us.

We will need additional funding to continue to commercialize our ClearPoint system and to bring the ClearTrace system to market and we may not be able to raise capital when needed, which would force us to delay, reduce or eliminate our commercialization efforts or our product development programs.

We anticipate that we will require between $5 million and $10 million of additional capital in order to continue to establish effective marketing and sales capabilities for our ClearPoint system and to conduct the research and development and regulatory clearance and approval activities necessary to bring the ClearTrace system to market. We believe that our existing cash resources, together with cash generated from sales of our products and cash generated from our financing activities, will be sufficient to meet our anticipated needs into June 2012. However, our operating plans may change, and we may need additional funds sooner than anticipated to meet our operational needs and capital requirements for product commercialization, product development, clinical trials, and regulatory clearances and approvals.

Additional funds may not be available when we need them on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. If adequate funds are not available on a timely basis, we may terminate or delay the development of the ClearTrace system, or take actions that negatively impact the commercialization of our ClearPoint system.

40

Table of Contents

Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Raising additional capital by issuing securities or through collaborative or licensing arrangements may cause dilution to existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish proprietary rights.

To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaboration or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or products or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. Any of these events could adversely affect our ability to achieve our product development and commercialization goals and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to our Intellectual Property

If we, or the third parties from whom we license intellectual property, are unable to secure and maintain patent or other intellectual property protection for the intellectual property covering our marketed products or our product candidates, our ability to compete will be harmed.

Our commercial success depends, in part, on obtaining patent and other intellectual property protection for the technologies contained in our marketed products and product candidates. The patent positions of medical device companies, including ours, can be highly uncertain and involve complex and evolving legal and factual questions. Our patent position is uncertain and complex, in part, because of our dependence on intellectual property that we license from others. If we, or the third parties from whom we license intellectual property, fail to obtain adequate patent or other intellectual property protection for intellectual property covering our marketed products or product candidates, or if any protection is reduced or eliminated, others could use the intellectual property covering our marketed products or product candidates, resulting in harm to our competitive business position. In addition, patent and other intellectual property protection may not provide us with a competitive advantage against competitors that devise ways of making competitive products without infringing any patents that we own or have rights to.

41

Table of Contents

As of January 31, 2012, our portfolio included nine wholly-owned issued United States patents (including one design patent), 27 wholly-owned pending United States patent applications (including three provisional applications), seven co-owned issued United States patents, eight co-owned pending United States patent applications, seven wholly-owned issued foreign patent, 42 wholly-owned pending foreign patent applications (including one Patent Cooperation Treaty application), 11 co-owned issued foreign patents and 19 co-owned pending foreign patent applications. In addition, as of January 31, 2012, we had licensed rights to 14 United States and 15 foreign third-party issued patents, and we had licensed rights to six United States and 11 foreign third-party pending patent applications. United States patents and patent applications may be subject to interference proceedings and United States patents may be subject to reissue and reexamination proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Foreign patents may be subject to opposition or comparable proceedings in the corresponding foreign patent offices. Any of these proceedings could result in either loss of the patent or denial of the patent application, or loss or reduction in the scope of one or more of the claims of the patent or patent application. Changes in either patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws may also diminish the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our protection. Interference, reexamination and opposition proceedings may be costly and time consuming, and we, or the third parties from whom we license intellectual property, may be unsuccessful in such proceedings. Thus, any patents that we own or license may provide limited or no protection against competitors. In addition, our pending patent applications and those we may file in the future may not result in patents being issued or may have claims that do not cover our products or product candidates. Even if any of our pending or future patent applications are issued, they may not provide us with adequate protection or any competitive advantages. Our ability to develop additional patentable technology is also uncertain.

Non-payment or delay in payment of patent fees or annuities, whether intentional or unintentional, may also result in the loss of patents or patent rights important to our business. Many countries, including certain countries in Europe, 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 third parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of the patent. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as do the laws of the United States, particularly in the field of medical devices and procedures.

Others may assert that our ClearPoint system or the ClearTrace system infringe their intellectual property rights, which may cause us to engage in costly disputes and, if we are not successful in defending ourselves, could also cause us to pay substantial damages and prohibit us from selling our marketed products.

There may be United States and foreign patents issued to third parties that relate to our business, including MRI-guided intervention systems and the components and methods and processes related to these systems. Some of these patents may be broad enough to cover one or more aspects of our present technologies and/or may cover aspects of our future technologies. We do not know whether any of these patents, if asserted, would be held valid, enforceable and infringed. We cannot assure that a court or administrative body would agree with any arguments or defenses we may have concerning invalidity, unenforceability or non-infringement of any third-party patent.

The medical device industry has been characterized by extensive litigation and administrative proceedings regarding patents and other intellectual property rights, and companies have employed such actions to gain a competitive advantage. If third parties assert infringement or other intellectual property claims against us, our technical and management personnel will experience a significant diversion of time and effort and we will incur large expenses defending our company. If third parties in any patent action are successful, our patent portfolio may be damaged, we may have to pay substantial damages and we may be required to stop selling our marketed products or obtain a license which, if available at all, may require us to pay substantial royalties. We cannot be certain that we will have the financial resources or the substantive arguments to defend our marketed products or product candidates from infringement or our patents from claims of invalidity or unenforceability, or to defend our marketed products or product candidates against allegations of infringement of third-party patents. In addition, any public announcements related to litigation or administrative proceedings initiated by us, or initiated or threatened against us, could negatively impact our business.

42

Table of Contents

If we lose access to critical third-party software that is integrated into our ClearPoint system software, our costs could increase and sales of our ClearPoint system would be delayed, potentially hurting our competitive position.

We license software from a third party that is integrated into the software component of our ClearPoint system. Our license continues through July 2015. If we are unable to continue to license this third-party software, we would not be able to continue to commercialize our ClearPoint system until equivalent software could be identified, licensed or developed, and integrated into the software component of our ClearPoint system. These delays, if they occur, could harm our business, operating results and financial condition.

We will be required to assign some of our intellectual property to Boston Scientific if we fail to satisfy certain financial requirements.

During 2009, Boston Scientific loaned us $3.5 million pursuant to the terms of three convertible promissory notes. Those loans mature in October, November and December 2014, respectively. While those loans remain outstanding, we must comply with the following requirements, beginning on the effective date of this registration statement: (1) we must pay when due all of our payroll obligations; (2) we must not suffer an event of default under any indebtedness for borrowed money; (3) we must maintain net working capital, which is defined as our current assets minus our current liabilities other than deferred revenue, of at least $(7.6) million as of the end of each month through May 2012; (4) we must maintain net working capital of at least $(6.0) million as of the end of each month from June 2012 through December 2012; (5) we must maintain net working capital of at least $(2.0) million as of the end of each month from January 2013 through March 2013; and (6) we must have a net working capital ratio, which is defined as our current assets divided by our current liabilities other than deferred revenue, of at least 0.80 as of the end of April 2013 and as of the end of each month thereafter.

If we fail to meet any of those requirements while our loans from Boston Scientific are outstanding, we will be required to assign Boston Scientific title to the patents and patent applications that we own and that we license to Boston Scientific. However, upon any such assignment to Boston Scientific, Boston Scientific will grant us an exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual worldwide license to the same patents and patent applications in all fields of use outside neuromodulation and implantable medical leads for cardiac applications. As of January 31, 2012, our licensing arrangements with Boston Scientific included six wholly owned issued United States patents, three wholly owned pending United States patent applications, seven wholly owned issued foreign patents, seven wholly owned pending foreign patent applications, seven co-owned issued United States patents, eight co-owned pending United States patent applications, 11 co-owned issued foreign patents and 19 co-owned pending foreign patent applications.

We may be subject to damages resulting from claims that our employees or we have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers.

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or other medical device companies, including competitors or potential competitors. In the future, we could be subject to claims that these employees, or we, have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending against such claims, a court could order us to pay substantial damages and prohibit us from using technologies or features that are essential to our products and product candidates, if such technologies or features are found to incorporate or be derived from the trade secrets or other proprietary information of the former employers. In addition, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. A loss of key research personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize certain product candidates, which could severely harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, such litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our employees and management.

If the combination of patents, trade secrets and contractual provisions that we rely on to protect our intellectual property is inadequate, our ability to successfully commercialize our marketed products and product candidates will be harmed, and we may not be able to operate our business profitably.

Our success and ability to compete is dependent, in part, upon our ability to maintain the proprietary nature of our technologies. We rely on a combination of patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret law and nondisclosure agreements to protect our intellectual property. However, such methods may not be adequate to protect us or permit us to gain or maintain a competitive advantage. Our patent applications may not issue as patents in a form that will be advantageous to us, or at all. Our issued patents, and those that may issue in the future, may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing related products.

To protect our proprietary rights, we may in the future need to assert claims of infringement against third parties to protect our intellectual property. There can be no assurance that we will be successful on the merits in any enforcement effort. In addition, we may not have sufficient resources to litigate, enforce or defend our intellectual property rights. Litigation to enforce our intellectual property rights in patents, copyrights or trademarks is highly unpredictable, expensive and time consuming and would divert human and monetary resources away from managing our business, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations even if we were to prevail in such litigation. In the event of an adverse judgment, a court could hold that some or all of our asserted intellectual property rights are not infringed, or that they are invalid or unenforceable, and could award attorney fees.

Despite our efforts to safeguard our unpatented and unregistered intellectual property rights, we may not be successful in doing so or the steps taken by us in this regard may not be adequate to detect or deter misappropriation of our technologies or to prevent an unauthorized third party from copying or otherwise obtaining and using our products, technologies or other information that we regard as proprietary. Additionally, third parties may be able to design around our patents. Furthermore, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our proprietary rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Our inability to adequately protect our intellectual property could allow our competitors and others to produce products based on our technologies, which could substantially impair our ability to compete.

43

Table of Contents

We have entered into confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees and consultants as one of the ways we seek to protect our intellectual property and other proprietary technologies. However, these agreements may not be enforceable or may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets or other proprietary information in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure or other breaches of the agreements.

Our employees and consultants may unintentionally or willfully disclose our confidential information to competitors, and confidentiality agreements may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using our proprietary know-how is expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States are sometimes less willing to protect know-how than courts in the United States. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how. Failure to obtain or maintain intellectual property protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.

We may be dependent upon one of our licenses from The Johns Hopkins University to develop and commercialize some components of the ClearTrace system.

We have entered into exclusive license agreements with The Johns Hopkins University, or Johns Hopkins, with respect to a number of technologies owned by Johns Hopkins. Under one of those agreements, which we entered into in 1998, we licensed a number of technologies relating to devices, systems and methods for performing MRI-guided interventions, particularly MRI-guided cardiac ablation procedures. Therefore, that license is important to the development of the ClearTrace system. Without that license, we may not be able to commercialize some of the components of the ClearTrace system when, and if, developed, subject to FDA clearance or approval. Johns Hopkins has the right to terminate the license under specified circumstances, including a breach by us and failure to cure such breach or in the event we file for bankruptcy. We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize products based on the licensed patents and patent applications. This obligation could require us to take actions related to the development of the ClearTrace system that we would otherwise not take.

Risks Related to Regulatory Compliance

We operate in a highly-regulated industry and any failure to comply with the extensive government regulations may subject us to fines, injunctions and other penalties that could harm our business.

We are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and various other federal, state and foreign governmental authorities. Government regulations and foreign requirements specific to medical devices are wide ranging and govern, among other things:

44

Table of Contents

We are subject to ongoing FDA requirements, including: required submissions of safety and other post-market information; manufacturing facility registration and device listing requirements; compliance with FDA’s medical device current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations, as codified in the Quality System Regulation, or QSR; requirements regarding field corrections and removals of our marketed products; reporting of adverse events and certain product malfunctions to the FDA; and numerous recordkeeping requirements. If we or any of our collaborators or suppliers fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may take action against us, including any of the following sanctions:

The FDA’s and foreign regulatory agencies’ statutes, regulations or policies may change, and additional government regulation or statutes may be enacted, which could increase post-approval regulatory requirements, or delay, suspend or prevent marketing of our products. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of adverse governmental regulation that might arise from future legislative or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad.

If we or our third-party suppliers fail to comply with the FDA’s QSR or any applicable state equivalent, our manufacturing operations could be interrupted and our potential product sales and operating results could suffer.

We and some of our third-party suppliers are required to comply with the FDA’s QSR, which covers the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, control, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, sterilization, storage and shipping of our products and product candidates. We and our suppliers will also be subject to the regulations of foreign jurisdictions regarding the manufacturing process to the extent we market our products in these jurisdictions. The FDA enforces the QSR through periodic and unannounced inspections of manufacturing facilities. Our facilities have not been inspected by the FDA for QSR compliance. We anticipate that we and certain of our third-party suppliers will be subject to future inspections. The failure by us or one of our third-party suppliers to comply with applicable statutes and regulations administered by the FDA and other regulatory bodies, or the failure to timely and adequately respond to any adverse inspectional observations, could result in enforcement actions against us, which could impair our ability to produce our products in a cost-effective and timely manner in order to meet our customers’ demands. If we fail to comply with the FDA’s QSR or any applicable state equivalent, we would be required to incur the costs and take the actions necessary to bring our operations into compliance, which may have a negative impact on our future sales and our ability to generate a profit.

Our products may in the future be subject to product recalls that could harm our reputation, business operations and financial results.

The FDA and similar foreign governmental authorities have the authority to require the recall of commercialized products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design, manufacture or labeling. In the case of the FDA, the authority to require a recall must be based on an FDA finding that there is a reasonable probability that the device would cause serious injury or death. In addition, foreign governmental bodies have the authority to require the recall of our products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture. Manufacturers may, under their own initiative, recall a product if any material deficiency in a device is

45

Table of Contents

found. A government-mandated or voluntary recall by us could occur as a result of component failures, manufacturing errors, design or labeling defects or other deficiencies and issues. Recalls of any of our products would divert managerial and financial resources and have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. We may initiate certain voluntary recalls involving our products in the future. Companies are required to maintain certain records of recalls, even if they are not reportable to the FDA. If we determine that certain of those recalls do not require notification to the FDA, the FDA may disagree with our determinations and require us to report those actions as recalls. A future recall announcement could harm our reputation with customers and negatively affect our sales. In addition, the FDA could take enforcement actions against us, which could impair our ability to produce our products in a cost-effective and timely manner in order to meet our customers’ demands. Regulatory investigations or product recalls could also result in our incurring substantial costs, losing revenues and implementing a change in the design, manufacturing process or the indications for which our products may be used, each of which would harm our business.

If our products cause or contribute to a death or a serious injury, or malfunction in certain ways, we will be subject to medical device reporting regulations, which can result in voluntary corrective actions or agency enforcement actions.

Under the FDA’s medical device reporting regulations, we are required to report to the FDA any incident in which our products may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or in which our products malfunctioned and, if the malfunction were to recur, would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury. In the future, we may experience events that may require reporting to the FDA pursuant to the medical device reporting regulations. In addition, all manufacturers placing medical devices in European Union markets are legally bound to report any serious or potentially serious incidents involving devices they produce or sell to the relevant authority in whose jurisdiction the incident occurred. Any adverse event involving our products could result in future voluntary corrective actions, such as recalls or customer notifications, or agency action, such as inspection, mandatory recall or other enforcement action. 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. In addition, failure to report such adverse events to appropriate government authorities on a timely basis, or at all, could result in an enforcement action against us.

We may incur significant liability if it is determined that we are promoting off-label uses of our products in violation of federal and state regulations in the United States or elsewhere.

We obtained 510(k) clearance of our ClearPoint system from the FDA for a general neurological intervention claim. This general neurological intervention indication is the same indication for use that applies to other devices that have traditionally been used in the performance of stereotactic neurological procedures. Unless and until we receive regulatory clearance or approval for use of our ClearPoint system in specific procedures, uses in procedures other than general neurological intervention procedures, such as biopsies and catheter and electrode insertions, may be considered off-label uses of our ClearPoint system.

Under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other similar laws, we are prohibited from labeling or promoting our ClearPoint system, or training physicians, for such off-label uses. The FDA defines labeling to include not only the physical label attached to the product, but also items accompanying the product. This definition also includes items as diverse as materials that appear on a company’s website. As a result, we are not permitted to promote uses of our products that are not cleared or approved, whether on our website, in product brochures or in customer communications. This prohibition means that the FDA could deem it unlawful for us to make claims about the use of our ClearPoint system for specific neurological procedures, such as DBS electrode placement procedures, or proactively discuss or provide information or training on the use of our ClearPoint system for those specific neurological procedures. However, although manufacturers are not permitted to promote for off-label uses, in their practice of medicine, physicians may lawfully choose to use medical devices for off-label uses. Therefore, a physician could use our ClearPoint system for uses not covered by the cleared labeling. This would constitute an off-label use. We expect that physicians will use our ClearPoint system for a variety of specific neurological procedures.

46

Table of Contents

The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce regulations prohibiting promotion of off-label uses and the promotion of products for which marketing clearance or approval has not been obtained. If the FDA determines that our promotional materials or training constitutes 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 of an untitled letter, warning letter, injunction, seizure, civil fine and criminal penalties. It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action if they consider our promotional or training materials to constitute promotion of an unapproved use, which could result in significant fines or penalties under other statutory authorities, such as laws prohibiting false claims for reimbursement. In that event, our reputation could be damaged and market adoption of our products would be impaired. Due to these legal constraints, our sales and marketing efforts will focus on the general technical attributes and benefits of our ClearPoint system and the FDA cleared indications for use. In addition, the off-label use of our products may increase the risk of injury to patients, and, in turn, the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims are expensive to defend and could divert our management’s attention and result in substantial damage awards against us.

We may be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations and could face substantial penalties if we are unable to fully comply with such laws.

Although we do not provide healthcare services or receive payments directly from Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payors for our marketed products or the procedures in which our marketed products may be used, many state and federal healthcare laws and regulations governing financial relationships between medical device companies and healthcare providers apply to our business and we could be subject to enforcement by both the federal government, private whistleblowers and the states in which we conduct our business. The healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include:

47

Table of Contents

The medical device industry has been under heightened scrutiny as the subject of government investigations and government enforcement or private whistleblower actions under the Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act involving manufacturers who allegedly offered unlawful inducements to potential or existing customers in an attempt to procure their business, including specifically arrangements with physician consultants.

We have agreements with physicians that may be scrutinized or may be subject to reporting requirements in the future, including consulting contracts for product development in which we compensate physicians for various services, including:

We may enter into similar agreements with physicians in the future. Likewise, we may enter into agreements with physicians to provide training and other similar services on the proper use of our products.

The Health Care Reform Law mandates increased transparency of arrangements between physicians and medical device companies, which we expect will increase our overall cost of compliance. We believe that this increased transparency will also result in a heightened level of government scrutiny of the relationships between physicians and medical device companies. While we believe that all of our arrangements with physicians comply with applicable law, the increased level of scrutiny, coupled with the expanded enforcement tools available to the government under the Health Care Reform Law, may increase the likelihood of a governmental investigation. If we become subject to such an investigation, our business and operations would be adversely affected even if we ultimately prevail because the cost of defending such investigation would be substantial. Moreover, companies subject to governmental investigations could lose both overall market value and market share during the course of the investigation.

In addition, we may provide customers with information on products that could be deemed to influence their coding or billing practices, and may have sales, marketing or other arrangements with hospitals and other providers that could also be the subject of scrutiny under these laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Any penalties, damages, fines, exclusions, curtailment or restructuring of our operations could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. The risk of our being found in violation of these laws is increased by the fact that many of these laws are broad and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. If the surgeons or other providers or entities with whom we do business are found to be non-compliant with applicable laws, they may be subject to sanctions, which could also have a negative impact on our business.

48

Table of Contents

We may be subject to privacy and data protection laws governing the transmission, security and privacy of health information which may impose restrictions on technologies and subject us to penalties if we are unable to fully comply with such laws.

Numerous federal, state and international laws and regulations govern the collection, use, disclosure, storage and transmission of patient-identifiable health information. These laws include:

We are required to comply with federal and state laws governing the transmission, security and privacy of patient identifiable health information that we may obtain or have access to in connection with manufacture and sale of our marketed products. We do not believe that we are a HIPAA covered entity because we do not submit electronic claims to third-party payors, but there may be limited circumstances in which we may operate as a business associate to covered entities if we receive patient identifiable data through activities such as training providers on the use of our products or investigating product performance or if our products store patient identifiable health information on behalf of a healthcare provider. We may be required to make costly system modifications to comply with the HIPAA privacy and security requirements that will be imposed on us contractually through business associate agreements by covered entities and directly under HITECH provisions that became effective in February 2010. Because the final regulatory changes to the HIPAA regulations required as part of HITECH have not yet been released, we are unable to predict what the impact on our business may be. Our failure to comply may result in criminal and civil liability because the potential for enforcement action against business associates is now greater. Enforcement actions can be costly and interrupt regular operations which may adversely affect our business.

49

Table of Contents

In addition, numerous other federal and state laws protect the confidentiality of patient information as well as employee personal information, including state medical privacy laws, state social security number protection laws, state data breach laws and federal and state consumer protection laws. These various laws in many cases are not preempted by the HIPAA rules and may be subject to varying interpretations by the courts and government agencies, creating complex compliance issues for us and our customers and potentially exposing us to additional expense, adverse publicity and liability.

In connection with any clinical trials we conduct, we will be subject to state and federal privacy and human subject protection regulations. The HIPAA requirements and other human subjects research laws could create liability for us or increase our cost of doing business because we must depend on our research collaborators to comply with the applicable laws. We may adopt policies and procedures that facilitate our collaborators’ compliance, and contractually require compliance, but we cannot ensure that non-employee collaborators or investigators will comply with applicable laws. As a result, unauthorized uses and disclosures of research subject information in violation of the law may occur. These violations may lead to sanctions that will adversely affect our business.

Risks Related to Facilities, Employees and Growth

We are dependent on our senior management team, engineering team, sales and marketing team and key research and physician advisors, and the loss of any of them could harm our business.

We are highly dependent on members of our senior management, in particular Kimble L. Jenkins, our President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, and Peter G. Piferi, our Chief Operating Officer. The loss of members of our senior management team, engineering team, sales and marketing team and key research and physician advisors, or our inability to attract or retain other qualified personnel or advisors, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We do not maintain key employee life insurance on any of our personnel other than for Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Piferi. Although we have obtained key employee insurance covering Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Piferi in the amount of $2,000,000, this would not fully compensate us for the loss of Mr. Jenkins’ or Mr. Piferi’s services.

We adopted our Key Personnel Incentive Plan, which is described in more detail in “Executive Compensation–Benefit Plans,” to provide Dr. Paul Bottomley, who is a key research advisor, and Mr. Parag Karmarkar, who is a key member of our engineering team, the opportunity to receive incentive bonus payments based on future performance of services to us or upon a sale of our company. However, if Dr. Bottomley or Mr. Karmarkar dies, becomes disabled or is involuntarily terminated by us without cause, we nevertheless would be obligated to make the incentive bonus payments otherwise provided under the plan. The obligation to make these payments could have a material adverse effect on our financial position. We may obtain life insurance on Dr. Bottomley and Mr. Karmarkar to reduce our financial exposure in the event of a participant’s death. We also adopted the Cardiac EP Business Participation Plan, which is described in more detail in “Executive Compensation–Benefit Plans,” to provide Dr. Nassir Marrouche, who is a key product development advisor, with financial rewards in the event that we sell our business operations relating to catheter-based MRI-guided cardiac ablation to treat cardiac arrhythmias, which we refer to as our cardiac EP business operations. If we sell our cardiac EP business operations or our entire company, we will be required to make a payment to Dr. Marrouche which is calculated as a percentage of the purchase price paid for, or allocated to, our cardiac EP business operations.

We need to hire and retain additional qualified personnel to grow and manage our business. If we are unable to attract and retain qualified personnel, our business and growth could be seriously harmed.

Our performance depends on the talents and efforts of our employees. Our future success will depend on our ability to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled personnel in all areas of our organization. We plan to continue to grow our business and will need to hire additional personnel to support this growth. We believe that there are only a limited number of individuals with the requisite skills to serve in many of our key positions, and we compete for key personnel with other medical device companies, as well as universities and research institutions. It is often difficult to hire and retain these persons, and we may be unable to replace key persons if they leave or fill new positions requiring key persons with appropriate experience. If we experience difficulties locating and hiring suitable personnel in the future, our growth may be hindered. Qualified individuals are in high demand, particularly in the medical device industry, and we may incur significant costs to attract and retain them. Employees that hold shares of our common stock or options to purchase our common stock may be more likely to leave us following the establishment of a public market for our common stock. If we are unable to attract and retain the personnel we need to succeed, our business and growth could be harmed.

50

Table of Contents

If we do not effectively manage our growth, we may be unable to successfully develop, market and sell our products.

Our future revenue and operating results will depend on our ability to manage the anticipated growth of our business. In order to achieve our business objectives, we must continue to grow. However, continued growth presents numerous challenges, including:

We cannot be certain that our systems, controls, infrastructure and personnel will be adequate to support our future operations. Any failure to effectively manage our growth could impede our ability to successfully develop, market and sell our products and our business will be harmed.

Our operations are vulnerable to interruption or loss due to natural disasters, power loss and other events beyond our control, which would adversely affect our business.

We will conduct a significant portion of our activities, including component processing, final assembly, packaging and distribution activities for our ClearPoint system, at a facility located in Irvine, California, which is a seismically active area that has experienced major earthquakes in the past, as well as other natural disasters, including wildfires. We have taken precautions to safeguard our facility, including obtaining business interruption insurance. However, any future natural disaster, such as an earthquake or a wildfire, could significantly disrupt our operations, and delay or prevent product assembly and shipment during the time required to repair, rebuild or replace our facility, which could be lengthy and result in significant expenses. Furthermore, the insurance coverage we maintain may not be adequate to cover our losses in any particular case or continue to be available at commercially reasonable rates and terms. In addition, our facility may be subject to shortages of electrical power, natural gas, water and other energy supplies. Any future shortage or conservation measure could disrupt our operations and cause expense, thus adversely affecting our business and financial results.

Risks Related to Our Shares of Common Stock

Our common stock has no active trading market. Unless an active trading market develops for our common stock, you may be unable to sell your shares.

Currently, there is no active trading market for our common stock, and an active trading market for our common stock may not develop or be sustained. There are a number of factors that will make it difficult for an active trading market in our common stock to develop. These factors include:

51

Table of Contents

We intend to have our common stock quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board. This market lacks the credibility of established stock markets and is characterized by a lack of liquidity, sporadic trading and larger gaps between bid and ask prices. Compared to a seasoned issuer with stock traded on an established market, which typically results in a large and steady volume of trading activity, there may be periods when trading activity in our shares is minimal or nonexistent. Trading in our common stock will likely be characterized by large swings in market prices. Unless an active trading market for our common stock is developed and maintained, you may be unable to sell your stock at or above the price you paid, or at all.

If a trading market in our common stock does develop, our stock price is likely to be volatile.

If a trading market in our common stock develops, the market will likely be subject to wide fluctuations in price. Additionally, stocks quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board have traditionally experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that often are unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of a company traded in such markets. Regardless of our actual operating performance, the market price for our common stock may materially decline from time to time. There can be no assurance that you will be able to sell your stock at a time when the market price is greater than what you paid. If a large volume of our shares of common stock is posted for sale, it will likely cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

Our directors, executive officers and principal stockholders and their respective affiliates have substantial control over us and could delay or prevent a change in corporate control.

As of January 31, 2012, our directors and executive officers, together with their affiliates, beneficially owned, in the aggregate, 31.0% of our common stock. As a result, these stockholders, acting together, have substantial control over the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of directors and any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. In addition, these stockholders, acting together, have significant influence over the management and affairs of our company. Accordingly, this concentration of ownership may have the effect of:

We have not paid dividends in the past and do not expect to pay dividends in the future.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all future earnings for the operation and expansion of our business and, therefore, do not anticipate declaring or paying cash dividends in the foreseeable future. The payment of dividends will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend on our results of operations, capital requirements, financial condition, prospects, contractual arrangements, any limitations on payments of dividends present in any of our future debt agreements and other factors our Board of Directors may deem relevant. If we do not pay dividends, a return on your investment will only occur if our stock price appreciates.

Anti-takeover provisions in our certificate of incorporation, bylaws and Delaware law could prevent or delay a change in control of our company.

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or change of control. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for stockholders to elect directors and take other corporate actions. These provisions:

52

Table of Contents

In addition, we are subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which generally prohibits a Delaware corporation from engaging in any broad range of business combinations with any stockholder who owns, or at any time in the last three years owned, 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock for a period of three years following the date on which the stockholder became an interested stockholder. This provision could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control, whether or not it is desired by or beneficial to our stockholders.

We will incur significant increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management will be required to divert attention from product development and commercialization and to devote substantial resources and time to new compliance initiatives.

As a public company, we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. We are working with our independent legal and accounting advisors to identify those areas in which changes should be made to our financial and management control systems to manage our growth and our obligations as a public company. These areas include corporate control, disclosure controls and procedures and financial reporting and accounting systems, including requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We will incur costs associated with our public company reporting requirements and corporate governance requirements, including requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as rules implemented by the SEC and the securities exchange on which our stock trades. We will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly. 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 required to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. As a result, it may be more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified people to serve on our Board of Directors, our board committees or as executive officers.

53

Table of Contents

In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. In particular, for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012, we must perform system and process evaluation and testing of our internal control over financial reporting to allow management and our independent registered public accounting firm to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Our compliance with Section 404 will require that we incur substantial expense and expend significant management time on compliance-related issues.

Item 2.   Financial Information

We have derived the following statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 and balance sheet data as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 from our audited financial statements included elsewhere in this registration statement. We have derived the following statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 and balance sheet data as of December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 from our audited financial statements not included in this registration statement. We derived the following selected historical financial data as of and for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 from our unaudited historical financial statements and the notes thereto included elsewhere in this registration statement. In the opinion of management, the interim financial data set forth below include all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring accruals, necessary to present fairly our financial position and results of operations. Operating results for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the entire fiscal year. You should read the financial data set forth below in conjunction with our financial statements and related notes and the information under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of our results to be expected in any future period.

54

Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read together with our financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this registration statement. This discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements that are based upon current expectations and involve risks, assumptions and uncertainties. You should review the “Risk Factors” section of this registration statement for a discussion of important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results described in or implied by the forward-looking statements described in the following discussion and analysis.

Overview

We are a medical device company that develops and commercializes innovative platforms for performing minimally invasive surgical procedures in the brain and heart under direct, intra-procedural MRI. We have two product platforms. Our ClearPoint system, which is in commercial use in the United States, is used to perform minimally invasive surgical procedures in the brain. We anticipate that the ClearTrace system, which is still in development, will be used to perform minimally invasive surgical procedures in the heart. Both systems utilize intra-procedural magnetic resonance imaging to guide the procedures. Both systems are designed to work in a hospital’s existing MRI suite. We believe that our two product platforms, subject to appropriate regulatory clearance and approval, will deliver better patient outcomes, enhance revenue potential for both physicians and hospitals, and reduce costs to the healthcare system.

In 2010, we received regulatory clearance from the FDA to market our ClearPoint system in the United States for general neurological procedures. In February 2011, we also obtained CE marking approval for the ClearPoint system, which enables us to sell the ClearPoint system in the European Union. Substantially all $0.7 million in 2011 product revenues relate to sales of our ClearPoint system products in the United States. We do not have regulatory clearance or approval to sell our ClearTrace system and, therefore, we have not generated revenues from sales of that product candidate. In 2008, we received licensing fees totaling $13.0 million from Boston Scientific for our MRI-safety technologies, which we used to finance our operations and internal growth. We have also financed our operations and internal growth through private placements of securities, borrowings and interest earned on the net proceeds from our private placements and the Boston Scientific licensing fees. Prior to 2008, we were a development stage enterprise. We have incurred significant losses since our inception in 1998 as we have devoted substantially all of our efforts to research and development. As of September 30, 2011, we had an accumulated deficit of $57.9 million. We may continue to incur significant operating losses as we commercialize our ClearPoint system products, continue to develop our product candidates and expand our business generally. We also expect that our general and administrative expenses will increase due to additional operational and regulatory costs and burdens associated with operating as a public company.

55

Table of Contents

Factors Which May Influence Future Results of Operations

The following is a description of factors which may influence our future results of operations, including significant trends and challenges that we believe are important to an understanding of our business and results of operations.

Revenues

In June 2010, we received 510(k) clearance from the FDA to market our ClearPoint system in the United States for general neurological procedures. Future revenues from sales of our ClearPoint system products are difficult to predict and may not be sufficient to offset our continuing and increasing research and development expenses and selling, general and administrative expenses for the next several years. We cannot sell any of our product candidates until we receive regulatory clearance or approval.

The generation of recurring revenues through sales of our disposable components is an important part of our business model for our ClearPoint system. We first generated revenues through the sale of ClearPoint system disposable components in the third quarter of 2010. We anticipate that recurring revenues will constitute an increasing percentage of our total revenues as we leverage each new installation of our ClearPoint system to generate recurring sales of these disposable components. With respect to a single hospital, we do not anticipate that sales of the reusable components of our ClearPoint system will generate recurring revenues.

Since inception, our revenues relate primarily to our collaborative agreements with Boston Scientific, principally from recognition of portions of the $13.0 million of licensing fees, which we received in 2008. Revenues associated with these licensing fees are recognized on a straight-line basis over a five year period, which is our estimated period of continuing involvement in the development activities. Additional payments related to substantive, performance-based milestones that may be received under the agreement regarding implantable cardiac leads will be deferred upon receipt and achievement of the specified milestones and recognized over our estimated period of continuing involvement. These revenue recognition policies are more fully described in the “Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates” section below. We did not report any revenues in 2007 or 2006.

Research and Development Costs

Our research and development costs consist primarily of costs associated with the conceptualization, design, testing and prototyping of our ClearPoint system products and our product candidates. This includes: the salaries, travel and benefits of research and development personnel; materials and laboratory supplies used by our research personnel; consultant costs; sponsored contract research and product development with third parties; and licensing costs. From our inception through September 30, 2011, we have incurred approximately $34 million in research and development expenses. We anticipate that research and development expenses will increase as we: (1) continue to develop enhancements to our ClearPoint system; (2) continue our product development efforts for the ClearTrace system; and (3) expand our research to apply our technologies to additional product applications.

Product development timelines, likelihood of success and total costs vary widely by product candidate. At this time, due to the risks inherent in the product clearance and approval process and given the stage of development of the ClearTrace system, we are unable to estimate with any certainty the costs that we will incur in the continued development of that product candidate for commercialization.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

Our selling, general and administrative expenses consist primarily of: salaries, sales incentive payments, travel and benefits; share-based compensation; professional fees, including fees for attorneys and outside accountants; occupancy costs; insurance; marketing costs; and other general and administrative expenses, which include corporate licenses and taxes, postage, office supplies and meeting costs. Our selling, general and administrative expenses are expected to increase due to costs associated with the commercialization of our ClearPoint system, increased headcount necessary to support our continued growth in operations, and the additional operational and regulatory burdens and costs associated with operating as a publicly traded company. In addition, we expect to incur additional costs associated with protecting our intellectual property rights as necessary to support our product offerings.

56

Table of Contents

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates

Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based on our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, or GAAP. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements as well as the reported expenses during the reporting periods. The accounting estimates that require our most significant, difficult and subjective judgments include revenue recognition, impairment of long-lived assets, computing the fair value of our derivative liability and the determination of share-based compensation and financial instruments. We evaluate our estimates and judgments on an ongoing basis. Actual results may differ materially from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

While our significant accounting policies are more fully described in note 2 to our financial statements included elsewhere in this registration statement, we believe that the following accounting policies and estimates are most critical to a full understanding and evaluation of our reported financial results.

Revenue Recognition . Our revenues arise from: (1) the sale of ClearPoint system reusable components, including associated installation services; (2) the sale of ClearPoint disposable products; and (3) license and development arrangements. We evaluate the various elements of our arrangements based upon GAAP for multiple element arrangements to determine whether the various elements represent separate units of accounting. This evaluation requires subjective determinations about the fair value or estimated selling price of each element and whether delivered elements have stand alone value and, therefore, are separable from the undelivered contract elements for revenue recognition purposes. In addition, we evaluated repayment provisions associated with one of the license agreements which, under certain conditions, would require us to return payments received under the agreement. We recognize revenue, in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC, 605-10-S99, Revenue Recognition, when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, the fee is fixed or determinable, collection of the fee is probable and delivery has occurred. For all sales, we require either a purchase agreement or a purchase order as evidence of an arrangement.

(1) Sale of ClearPoint system reusable components — Revenues related to ClearPoint system sales are recognized upon installation of the system and the completion of training of at least one of the customer’s physicians, which typically occurs concurrently with the ClearPoint system installation. ClearPoint system reusable components include software. This software is incidental to the utility of the ClearPoint system as a whole, and as such, the provisions of ASC 985-605, Software Revenue Recognition, are not applicable.

(2) Sales of ClearPoint disposable products — Revenues from the sale of ClearPoint disposable products utilized in procedures performed using the ClearPoint system, which occurs after the system installation is completed for a given customer, are recognized at the time risk of loss passes, which is generally at shipping point or the customer’s location, based on the specific terms with that customer.

(3) License and development arrangements — Historically we have evaluated revenue recognition on an agreement-by-agreement basis, which has principally involved two license agreements with Boston Scientific. Both agreements provide various revenue streams for us, including an up-front licensing fee for one of the licenses, various milestone payments, payments for research and development and consulting services, and royalties. In both license agreements, we concluded that all of the contract elements should be treated as a single unit of accounting. As such, all amounts received were initially recorded as deferred revenue and thereafter recognized as revenue over our estimated period of performance on a straight-line basis. In the case of the license with possible repayment obligation provisions, revenue recognition will not occur until the repayment obligation period expires. Note 2 to our financial statements, “Significant Accounting Policies—Revenue Recognition”, more fully describes the deliverables under these license agreements including our rights, obligations and cash flows.

57

Table of Contents

Inventory . Inventory is carried at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out method) or net realizable value. All items included in inventory relate to our ClearPoint system. We periodically review our inventory for obsolete items and provide a reserve upon identification of potential obsolete items.

Valuation Allowance for Deferred Tax Assets and Liabilities.  Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the estimated future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective income tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in the period that included the enactment date.

Valuation allowances are recorded for deferred tax assets when the recoverability of such assets is not deemed more likely than not.

We have evaluated the effect of guidance provided by GAAP regarding accounting for uncertainty in income taxes. In that regard, we have evaluated all tax positions that could have a significant effect on the financial statements and determined that we have no uncertain tax positions at September 30, 2011 that could have a significant effect on our financial statements. Our returns after 2006 remain open for examination.

Impairment of long-lived assets.  We evaluate the recoverability of our long-lived assets (finite lived intangible assets and property and equipment) whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of such assets may not be fully recoverable. When this occurs, the expected undiscounted future cash flows are compared to the net book value of the related assets. If the net book value of the related assets exceeds the expected undiscounted future cash flows of the assets, the carrying amount will be reduced to the present value of the expected future cash flows and an impairment loss would be recognized. As of September 30, 2011, we have not recorded any impairment losses.

Share-based compensation. We account for compensation for all arrangements under which employees and others receive shares of stock or equity instruments (including options and warrants) in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 “ Compensation – Stock Compensation” , or ASC Topic 718. Under ASC Topic 718, the fair value of each award is estimated and amortized as compensation expense over the requisite service period. The fair value of our share-based awards is estimated on the grant date using the Black-Scholes valuation model. This valuation model requires the input of highly subjective assumptions, including the expected price volatility and estimated option term. As we have been operating as a private company, we are unable to use actual price volatility and option life data as input assumptions within our Black-Scholes valuation model. Prior to October 2009, we used expected volatilities based on the historical volatility of the industry sector in which we operate, in accordance with the guidance set forth in ASC Topic 718.

Beginning in October 2009, we based our estimate of expected volatility on the average historical volatilities of publicly traded companies we deemed similar due to our lack of historical volatility data of our own. We will consistently apply this methodology until a sufficient amount of historical information regarding the volatility of our share price becomes available.

To estimate the expected term, we chose to utilize the “simplified” method for “plain vanilla” options as discussed in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Staff Accounting Bulletin 107, or SAB 107. We believe that all factors listed in SAB 107 as pre-requisites for utilizing the simplified method are true for us and for our share-based payment arrangements. We intend to utilize the simplified method for the foreseeable future until more detailed information about exercise behavior becomes available.

Our risk-free interest rates are based on a zero-coupon U.S. treasury instrument, the term of which is consistent with the expected term of the stock options. We have not paid and do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our shares of common stock; therefore, the expected dividend yield is assumed to be zero. The fair value of share-based payments are generally amortized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service periods of the awards, which are generally the vesting periods.

58

Table of Contents

We believe there is a high degree of subjectivity involved when using option pricing models to estimate share-based compensation under ASC Topic 718. Currently, there is not a market-based mechanism or other practical application to verify the reliability and accuracy of the estimates stemming from these valuation models, nor is there a means to compare and adjust the estimates to actual values. Although the fair value of stock option awards is determined in accordance with ASC Topic 718 using an option pricing model, that value may not be indicative of the fair value observed in a market transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. If factors change and we employ different assumptions in the application of ASC Topic 718 in future periods than those currently applied under ASC Topic 718, the compensation expense we record in future periods under ASC Topic 718 may differ significantly from what we have historically reported.

Total share-based compensation expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 was $0.8 million and $0.2 million, respectively, and for years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, it was $0.2 million, $0.1 million and $0.1 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2011 there was $2.1 million of unrecognized compensation cost related to nonvested share-based compensation arrangements. That cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.1 years.

Research and development costs.  Expenses related to research, design and development of products are charged to research and development costs as incurred. These expenditures include direct salary costs for research and development personnel, costs for materials used in research and development activities and costs for outside services.

Derivative Financial Instruments . We account for derivative instruments in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 815, which establishes accounting and reporting standards for derivative instruments and hedging activities, including certain derivative instruments embedded in other financial instruments or contracts and requires recognition of all derivatives on the balance sheet at fair value. We calculate the fair value of these instruments using the Black-Scholes valuation model. Changes in the fair value of derivatives are recorded each period as a gain or loss in the statement of operations unless the derivative qualifies for hedge accounting. At September 30, 2011, at December 31, 2010 and at December 31, 2009, we did not have any derivative instruments that were designated as hedges.

NM = not meaningful

Revenues.  Revenues were $2.7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, compared to $2.0 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010. Licensing fee revenues related to our license agreement with Boston Scientific for implantable cardiac leads was $2.0 million during both periods. Product revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 were $0.7 million and $10,000, respectively. The increase relates to sales of our ClearPoint system reusable and disposable components. We initiated the commercial launch of our ClearPoint system in 2010 after receiving FDA regulatory clearance in June 2010. Higher ClearPoint product sales during the nine months ended September 30, 2011 reflect increased adoption and use of our ClearPoint system.

Cost of Product Revenues. Cost of product revenues was $0.4 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, compared to $2,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2010. The increase in cost of product revenues was due to the increase in product revenues and the change in our sales mix. All product revenues for the

59

Table of Contents

nine months ended September 30, 2010 were related to sales of our ClearPoint system disposable products. On the other hand, approximately one-half of our product revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 were from sales of our disposable products and approximately one-half from sales of our reusable components. Gross margin is significantly higher on our sales of ClearPoint system disposable products than sales of our ClearPoint system reusable products.

Research and Development Costs. Research and development costs were $3.1 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, compared to $4.6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010. This decrease of $1.5 million, or 32%, was due primarily to: (i) a decrease of $0.7 million in software development expenses related to our ClearPoint system software, as very little development work was left to be completed in 2011; (ii) a decrease of $0.5 million in ClearTrace system software development expenses related to the timing of achievement of development milestones by Siemens, which is developing the software based on our specifications; and (iii) a decrease of $0.2 million due to a reduction in the use of outside consultants.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses.  Selling, general and administrative expenses were $3.7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, compared to $3.1 for the nine months ended September 30, 2010. The increase of $0.6 million, or 21%, relates mostly to an increase in share-based compensation expense of $0.6 million.

Costs of Withdrawn IPO. Costs of withdrawn IPO were $1.8 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010. In December 2009, we filed a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the initial public offering, or IPO, of shares of our common stock. In September 2010 we made the decision to withdraw that registration statement and to cancel the planned IPO. Costs which had been deferred during 2009 totaling $0.4 million and $1.4 million of costs incurred during 2010 related to the IPO effort were expensed to costs of withdrawn IPO in September 2010.

Other Income (Expense), Net.  Net other expense was $1.8 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, compared to net other income of $88,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2010. Net interest expense was $1.8 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, compared to $1.1 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010. The increase in interest expense relates to interest on increased borrowings and related amortization of debt discount and deferred financing costs. We issued notes payable in the aggregate principal amount of $7.1 million during 2010 that were outstanding for full nine month period ended September 30, 2011. In addition, we issued notes payable during the first nine months of 2011 in the aggregate principal amount of $3.3 million. Net interest expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 was more than offset by a gain of $1.2 million recorded on the revaluation of our derivative liability.

Comparison of the Year Ended December 31, 2010 to the Year Ended December 31, 2009

NM = not meaningful

Revenues.  Revenues were $2.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to $2.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2009, an increase of 3%. Licensing fee revenues related to our license agreement with Boston Scientific for implantable medical leads was $2.6 million during both periods. Sales of ClearPoint system disposable products of $0.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 comprised the increase.  

Research and Development Costs.  Research and development costs were $5.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to $6.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2009, a decrease of $0.4 million, or

60

Table of Contents

6%. This decrease was due primarily to: (i) a decrease in personnel related costs of $0.6 million related mostly to reallocation of resources from development related activities in 2009 to selling and operational activities in 2010; (ii) a reduction in prototyping, testing and third party engineering services related to our ClearPoint system of approximately $0.5, as more ClearPoint system development work was being performed in 2009; and (iii) a decrease of $0.2 million in software development expenses related to our ClearPoint system, as more software development work was performed in 2009. These decreases were partially offset by an increase in ClearTrace system software development expenses related to the timing of achievement of development milestones and an increase of $0.3 million in compensation expense related to incentive compensation earned under our Key Personnel Incentive Program.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses . Selling, general and administrative expenses were $4.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to $3.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2009, an increase $1.1 million, or 31%. The increase was due primarily to: (i) an increase of $0.9 million in selling, marketing, and other operations costs associated with our commercial launch of our ClearPoint system; (ii) an increase of $0.4 million related to settlement of a trademark dispute; (iii) an increase of $0.1 in professional services related to patent filings; and (iv) a $0.1 million increase in share-based compensation expense. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in bonus and related expenses of $0.4 million.

Other Income (Expense), Net.  Net other income was $61,000 for the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to net other expense of $46,000 for the year ended December 31, 2009. Net interest expense was $1.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to $0.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2009. The increase in interest expense relates to interest on increased borrowings and related amortization of debt discount and deferred financing costs. We issued notes payable in the aggregate principal amount of $3.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2009 that were outstanding for all of 2010. In addition, we issued notes payable during 2010 in the aggregate principal amount of $7.1 million. Net interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2010 was more than offset by the combination of a gain of $1.2 million recorded on the revaluation of our derivative liability and other income of $0.4 million related to grants received under the Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project provided by the United States Treasury Department.  

Comparison of the Year Ended December 31, 2009 to the Year Ended December 31, 2008

NM = not meaningful

Revenues.  Revenues were $2.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $2.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2008, an increase of 33%. Revenues for both periods relate solely to our licensing agreement with Boston Scientific for implantable cardiac leads. The increase in revenues resulted from the recognition of a full year of licensing fee revenues during the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to the recognition of only nine months of licensing fee revenues for the year ended December 31, 2008 (as the license commenced in March 2008).

Research and Development Costs.  Research and development costs were $6.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2009, compared to $4.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2008, an increase of 43%. This increase was due primarily to: (i) an increase of $1.2 million related to the employment of additional research and development personnel for ClearPoint product development efforts; (ii) an increase of $0.7 million related to the use of third-parties for research and development services; and (iii) an increase of $0.4 million for materials and supplies necessary for product candidate testing and prototyping, depreciation and miscellaneous research and development expenses. These increases in research and development expenses was partially offset by decreases in third party engineering design costs and software development costs of $0.4 million and $0.3 million, respectively.

61

Table of Contents

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses . Selling, general and administrative expenses were $3.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $2.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2008, an increase of 23%. The increase was due primarily to: (i) an increase of $0.5 million in corporate and operations personnel costs; (ii) an increase of $0.3 million in sales and marketing costs incurred in preparation of the anticipated commercial launch of our ClearPoint system; and (iii) an increase of $0.1 million in occupancy costs. Increases in corporate and operating personnel costs were caused mostly by additional hires. The increase in occupancy costs was associated with a full year of lease expense for the year ended December 31, 2009 for both our Irvine and Memphis offices as compared to only occupying these offices a portion of the year during 2008. Increases in general and administrative expenses were partially offset by an approximate $0.4 million reduction in professional fees during the year ended December 31, 2009 related to the timing of patent filings.  

Other Income (Expense), Net.  Net interest expense was $46,000 for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to net interest expense of $0.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Interest expense decreased for the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2008 as a result of the amortization of a debt discount related to a convertible note converted in June 2008 of $0.4 million as compared to amortization of debt discount of $0.1 million since inception of the related party convertible note payable in October 2009 through December 31, 2009. Interest income in 2009 decreased from 2008 by approximately $0.1 million due to lower average cash balances.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

We received $13.0 million in licensing fees in 2008 under one of our agreements with Boston Scientific. We recognize revenue from these licensing fees over the estimated time period to complete our development work under the agreement. In addition, under the terms of the agreements, we could receive up to $20.8 million in future milestone-based payments, subject to our achievement of the milestones stipulated in the agreements and the issuance of certain patents licensed to Boston Scientific, of which there can be no assurance. In addition to payments received from Boston Scientific, we have financed our operations and internal growth almost exclusively through private placements of preferred stock and borrowings. We have incurred significant losses since our inception in 1998. As of September 30, 2011, we had an accumulated deficit of $57.9 million. Our accumulated deficit resulted primarily from research and development activities and the costs to support such efforts as recorded in general and administrative costs.

During 2009, Boston Scientific loaned us $3.5 million pursuant to the terms of three convertible promissory notes. Each loan accrued interest at the rate of 10% per year, compounded annually, and each loan was scheduled to mature on the second anniversary of the date on which the funds were advanced. Effective February 2, 2012, we entered into a loan amendment with Boston Scientific which extended the maturity dates of each loan by three years and also reduced the interest rate of each loan from 10% to 0%, beginning February 2, 2012. As of February 2, 2012, the outstanding aggregate loan balance owed to Boston Scientific was approximately $4.3 million. The Boston Scientific loans are secured by a first priority security interest in all of our assets. Under the terms of the loans, we will be required to prepay all or a portion of the loans upon the consummation of any qualified financing, which is any equity financing in which shares of our preferred stock are issued in exchange for cash proceeds. Upon consummation of a qualified financing from Medtronic, Inc., St. Jude Medical, Inc., or Johnson & Johnson, or any of their respective subsidiaries or affiliates, up to 100% of the cash proceeds from such qualified financing must be used to prepay the outstanding amount of the loans. Upon consummation of a qualified financing from any other investor, up to 25% of the cash proceeds from such qualified financing must be applied by us to prepay the outstanding amount of the loans. To date, we have not consummated a qualified financing. We can prepay each loan at any time prior to its respective maturity date. These loans are currently convertible, at the option of Boston Scientific, into 542,325 shares of our preferred stock, based on a current conversion price of $8.00 per share. The terms of the preferred stock into which Boston Scientific may elect to convert its loans must be agreed upon between us and Boston Scientific.

In March 2010, we issued 10% senior unsecured convertible notes in the aggregate principal amount of $4.1 million in a private placement. The notes mature two years from the date of issuance and accrue interest at the rate of 10% per year. When issued, the notes did not provide for conversion into shares of our common stock upon the effectiveness of this registration statement. However, as of January 31, 2012, holders of $3.4 million in principal amount of the notes have amended their notes to provide for the automatic conversion of their notes, including the principal and all accrued interest, into shares of our common stock upon the effectiveness of this registration statement, based on a conversion price of $1.00 per share. At that conversion price, those notes would have converted into 4,039,964 shares of our common stock as of January 31, 2012. The holders of the remaining $0.7 million in principal amount of the notes have not agreed to convert their notes into shares of our common stock upon the effectiveness of this registration statement. We continue to negotiate with those holders to amend their notes to provide for that conversion.

62

Table of Contents

In November 2010, we closed a private placement in which we sold units to existing stockholders and other existing investors in the company. Each unit consisted of a junior secured note and one share of our common stock. In the aggregate, we issued 10,714,286 units and received proceeds of $3.0 million, meaning we issued 10,714,286 shares of common stock and promissory notes in the aggregate principal amount of $3.0 million. The notes mature 10 years from the date of issuance and accrue interest at the rate of 3.5% per year. The notes are secured by a security interest in all our assets. The notes are not convertible into shares of our common stock or any other securities. All outstanding principal and interest on the notes will be due and payable in a single payment upon maturity.

In April 2011, we issued a 10% subordinated secured convertible note in the principal amount of $2.0 million to Brainlab. The note matures in April 2016, unless earlier converted, and it accrues interest at the rate of 10% per year. All outstanding principal and interest on the note will be due and payable in a single payment upon maturity. The note is secured by a security interest in all our assets. In the event we close a financing transaction in which we issue shares of our preferred stock and receive at least $10.0 million in net proceeds, the principal and accrued interest of Brainlab’s note will automatically convert into shares of the preferred stock issued in the financing, based on the lower of the price paid by investors in the financing or $0.60 per share, if the number of shares to be issued upon conversion represents at least 10% of our outstanding shares of stock on a fully diluted basis. If the number of shares that would be issued upon conversion represents less than 10% of our outstanding shares of stock on a fully diluted basis, the note will convert into the shares of preferred stock that are issued in the financing, based on the lower of the price paid by investors in the financing or $0.60 per share, only upon Brainlab’s election to convert.

In June through September 2011, we issued unsecured convertible notes in the aggregate principal amount of $1.3 million to six of our non-employee directors. The note holders also received common stock warrants to purchase 1,310,000 shares of our common stock. The notes mature two years from the date of issuance, unless earlier converted, and accrue interest at 15% per year. The warrants vest immediately, have a term of five years, and have an exercise price of $0.01 per share. When issued, the notes provided for conversion into shares of our common stock (i) upon consummation of an initial public offering, based on a conversion price equal to 60% of the public offering price, or (ii) upon consummation of a reverse merger of our company into a publicly held shell company, based on a conversion price equal to 60% of the fair market value of our common stock at the time of the merger. The notes were subsequently amended to provide that the principal and all accrued interest under the notes will automatically convert into shares of our common stock upon the effectiveness of this registration statement, based on a conversion price of $0.60 per share. At that conversion price, the notes would have converted into 2,350,631 shares of our common stock as of January 31, 2012.

In October 2011, we began a private placement of our securities in which we are offering units, with each unit consisting of a 10% secured convertible note in the principal amount of $100,000 and a warrant to purchase 50,000 shares of our common stock. The notes mature three years from the date of issuance, unless earlier converted, and accrue interest at 10% per year. The notes are secured by a security interest in all our assets. The notes, including the principal and all accrued interest, convert automatically into shares of our common stock upon the effectiveness of this registration statement, based on a conversion price of $0.60 per share. Likewise, a note holder may elect at any time to convert the note into shares of our common stock, based on a conversion price of $0.60 per share. The warrants vest immediately, have a term of five years, and have an exercise price of $0.75 per share. As of January 31, 2012, we had received gross proceeds of $2.7 million in connection with the unit offering. The placement agent for the financing will receive a cash fee equal to 10% of the gross proceeds, as well as a warrant to purchase that number of shares of our common stock equal to 8% of the number of shares of our common stock issuable upon conversion of the notes and exercise of the warrants sold in this financing. We intend to use the proceeds from the financing for working capital and general corporate purposes. As of January 31, 2012, the notes issued in the unit offering were convertible into 4,560,155 shares of our common stock, and the warrants issued in the unit offering were exercisable for 1,351,000 share of our common stock.

Net Cash Flows from Operating Activities.  Net cash flows from operating activities for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 was $(4.8) million, $(6.2) million, $(7.5) million, $(9.5) million, and $7.3 million, respectively. The use of cash in the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 resulted primarily from funding research and development activities and from incurring supporting selling, general and administrative expenses. The positive net cash for the year ended December 31, 2008 resulted from the $13.0 million in licensing fees under one our license agreement with Boston Scientific for implantable cardiac leads.

63

Table of Contents

Net Cash Flows from Investing Activities.  Net cash flows from investing activities for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 was $(17,000), $(0.1) million, $(0.2) million, $(0.3) million, and $(0.9) million, respectively. Net cash used in investing activities for each of the periods was primarily related to the purchase of property and equipment to establish and support operations at our Irvine, California facility and the acquisition of intellectual property licenses.

Net Cash Flows from Financing Activities.  Net cash flows from financing activities for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 and the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 was $3.3 million, $3.8 million, $6.8 million, $2.4 million, and zero, respectively. Net cash flows from financing activities for each period noted above related primarily to the proceeds from our issuance the notes and other securities described above.

Operating Capital and Capital Expenditure Requirements.  To date, we have not achieved profitability. We could continue to incur substantial net losses for the next several years as we commercialize our ClearPoint system products, continue to develop the ClearTrace system, expand our corporate infrastructure and pursue additional applications for our technology platforms.

As of September 30, 2011, we had $70,000 in cash and cash equivalents. Our cash balances are typically held in a variety of interest bearing instruments, including interest bearing demand accounts and certificates of deposit. Cash in excess of immediate requirements is invested primarily with a view to liquidity and capital preservation. As described above, we are in the process of conducting a private placement of securities to raise capital for our business. We believe that our existing cash resources, together with cash generated from sales of our products and cash generated from our current financing transaction, will be sufficient to meet our anticipated cash requirements into June 2012. If our available cash and cash equivalents, cash generate from product sales and the net proceeds from our current financing transaction are insufficient to satisfy our liquidity requirements, we may seek to sell additional equity or debt securities or enter into a credit facility. The sale of additional equity and debt securities may result in dilution to our stockholders. If we raise additional funds through the issuance of debt securities, these securities could have rights senior to those of our common stock and could contain covenants that would restrict our operations. We may require additional capital beyond our currently forecasted amounts. Any such required additional capital may not be available on reasonable terms, if at all. If we are unable to obtain additional financing, we may be required to reduce the scope of, delay, or eliminate some or all of, our planned commercialization, research and development activities, which could materially harm our business.

Our forecast of the period of time through which our financial resources will be adequate to support our operations, the costs to commercialize our ClearPoint system products and the costs to complete development of our product candidates are forward-looking statements and involve risks and uncertainties, and actual results could vary materially and negatively as a result of a number of factors, including the factors discussed in the “Risk Factors” section of this registration statement. We have based these estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could deplete our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with the development and commercialization of medical devices, we are unable to estimate the exact amounts of capital outlays and operating expenditures necessary to successfully commercialize our products and complete the development of our product candidates. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including but not limited to the following:

64

Table of Contents

The following table summarizes our outstanding future contractual obligations as of December 31, 2010 and the effect those obligations are expected to have on our liquidity and cash flows in future periods:

Our commitments under operating leases shown above consist of payments relating to our facilities under leases that as of December 31, 2010 expire in 2011, 2012 and 2014. Our note payable obligations consist of the principal amounts and interest that will be payable under the convertible promissory notes we issued to Boston Scientific, the senior unsecured convertible notes we issued in March 2010, and the junior secured notes we issued in November 2010. Shared research obligations consist of amounts payable under research agreements with certain universities. Co-development obligations consist of the payment obligations to Siemens in connection with the ClearTrace system software development. Software license obligations represent minimum purchase commitments under a master service and license agreement for the license of software code that is used in our ClearPoint system. Incentive compensation plan obligations represent amounts payable to participants under a key personnel incentive program. Minimum royalty payment obligations consist of the minimum royalty payments due to a licensor.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

Our exposure to market risk for changes in interest rates relates to our cash equivalents on deposit in demand deposit accounts and certificates of deposit. The primary objective of our cash investment activities is to preserve principal while at the same time maximizing the income we receive from our invested cash without significantly increasing risk of loss. We do not currently use derivative financial instruments. Our cash and investments policy emphasizes liquidity and preservation of principal over other portfolio considerations. As of September, substantially all of our transactions have been denominated in United States dollars, accordingly, we do not have any material exposure to foreign currency rate fluctuations.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

Since our inception, we have not engaged in any off-balance sheet arrangements, including the use of structured finance, special purpose entities or variable interest entities.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued additional guidance on fair value measurements. The updated guidance provides a consistent definition of fair value and aligns the fair value measurement and disclosure requirements between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS, amends certain guidance primarily related to fair value measurements for financial instruments, and enhances disclosure requirements particularly for Level 3 fair value measurements. The guidance is effective prospectively for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and interim periods within those years. Early adoption is permitted. We do not expect the adoption of this guidance will have a material impact on our financial statements.

In June 2011, the FASB issued new accounting guidance related to the presentation of comprehensive income that increases comparability between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. This guidance will require companies to present the components of net income and other comprehensive income either as one continuous statement or as two consecutive statements, eliminating the option to present components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity. Public entities are required to apply this guidance for fiscal years and

65

Table of Contents

interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. Nonpublic entities should begin applying these requirements for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2012, and interim and annual periods thereafter. We do not believe the adoption of this guidance will materially impact our results of operations or financial position.

Item 3 .   Properties

We lease approximately 7,400 square feet of space in Irvine, California under a lease that expires in September 2012, which we use as our principal research and development facility and for the assembly of certain of our products. We have the right to extend our Irvine lease for three additional years upon prior written notice and the fulfillment of certain conditions.

We lease approximately 3,300 square feet of office space in Memphis, Tennessee, which we use as our executive offices. Our Memphis lease expires in November 2014. We also have a license to use approximately 1,400 square feet of space in Baltimore, Maryland, which we have used for advanced research and development activities. The term of our license agreement for our Baltimore facility expires at the end of February 2012.

We believe that our Irvine, California and Memphis, Tennessee facilities are sufficient to meet our needs for the foreseeable future.

Item 4.   Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

The following table sets forth information as of January 31, 2012 regarding the beneficial ownership of our common stock by:

Percentage ownership calculations for beneficial ownership are based on 35,000,731 shares outstanding as of January 31, 2012, which includes and assumes:

Except as otherwise indicated below, the address of each officer, director and five percent stockholder listed below is c/o MRI Interventions, Inc., One Commerce Square, Suite 2550, Memphis, TN 38103.

We have determined beneficial ownership in accordance with the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. These rules generally attribute beneficial ownership of securities to persons who possess sole or shared voting power or investment power with respect to those securities. In addition, the rules include shares of common stock issuable pursuant to the exercise of stock options and warrants that are either immediately exercisable or exercisable within 60 days of January 31, 2012. Likewise, the rules also include shares of common stock issuable pursuant to the conversion of convertible promissory notes that are either immediately convertible or convertible within 60 days of January 31, 2012. These shares are deemed to be outstanding and beneficially owned by the person holding those options, warrants or convertible notes for the purpose of computing the percentage ownership of that person, but they are not treated as outstanding for the purpose of computing the percentage ownership of any other person. Unless otherwise indicated, the persons or entities identified in this table have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares shown as beneficially owned by them.

66

Table of Contents

67

Table of Contents

Kimble L. Jenkins joined our Board of Directors in September 2002 and presently serves as our Chairman. Mr. Jenkins has served as our President since January 2003, and he has also served as our Chief Executive Officer since September 2004. Mr. Jenkins served in those offices on a part-time basis until May 2008, at which time Mr. Jenkins began serving as our President and Chief Executive Officer on a full-time basis. Prior to May 2008, Mr. Jenkins was also a Managing Director with the investment bank Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., where he founded that firm’s Private Equity Group in 1998. Mr. Jenkins has over 20 years of experience building and working with growth stage companies. Mr. Jenkins holds a Bachelor of Arts from Brown University and a Juris Doctorate from Georgetown University Law Center. As our Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Jenkins offers unique insight and vision into our operations, our competition and the medical device industry.

Paul A. Bottomley is a founder of the company and has been a member of our Board of Directors since December 1998. Dr. Bottomley joined Johns Hopkins in 1994. Since 1997, Dr. Bottomley has served as the Director of the Division of MR Research in the Department of Radiology at Johns Hopkins. Previously, Dr. Bottomley worked at General Electric Company’s Research and Development Center from 1980 to 1994 where he played a key role in the development of their MRI clinical product and was awarded the Center’s highest honor, its Coolidge Medal and Fellowship, for these developments in 1990. He was awarded the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine’s Gold Medal for his contributions to MRI in 1989. He holds over 30 U.S. patents and has written more than 150 scientific journal publications. Dr. Bottomley also serves as a consultant to us. As a pioneer in MR research, Dr. Bottomley offers expertise in the practical application of our technologies and the commercial opportunities for our products and product candidates.

Bruce C. Conway joined our Board of Directors in May 2011. From 1992 to 2010, Mr. Conway served as a consultant for numerous early stage companies in creating and implementing individualized business strategies designed to result in a liquidity event. He has significant experience working with companies in the biomedical, alternative energy, oil and gas exploration, agriculture, water and real estate industries. Mr. Conway previously served on the board of directors for Whitehall Corporation, a publicly traded defense and electronics company prior to its acquisition by Aviation Sales Company in 1998. As a consultant to, and investor with, numerous early stage companies, Mr. Conway offers substantial expertise in the area of formation and implementation of corporate and operational strategy.

68

Table of Contents

Charles E. Koob joined our Board of Directors in August 2008. From 1970 to 2008, Mr. Koob practiced competition, trade regulation and antitrust law at the law firm of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and served as the co-head of the firm’s litigation department for a portion of his tenure. For much of his career, Mr. Koob served as a strategic advisor for the boards of directors of many public companies. Mr. Koob also serves on the board of directors of MiMedx Group, Inc., a publicly traded biomedical products company, and DemeRx, Inc., a privately held biotechnology company. As a byproduct of Mr. Koob’s sophisticated former legal practice, Mr. Koob offers expertise in the areas of corporate governance, contract negotiation and organizational and strategic leadership.

James K. Malernee, Jr. joined our Board of Directors in March 2010. Dr. Malernee is a cofounder of Cornerstone Research, Inc., a consulting firm specializing in analytical support to attorneys in all phases of commercial litigation and regulatory proceedings, and he currently serves as Chairman and Managing Director of that firm. Over the last twenty years with Cornerstone Research, he has directed research on complex business issues related to a wide variety of cases. In recent years, Dr. Malernee has specialized in securities matters, supervising hundreds of cases dealing with material disclosure, loss causation, insider trading, mergers and acquisitions, targeted repurchases, minority buyouts, stock trading behavior, valuation and class certification. Dr. Malernee has served as a board member and consultant to major corporations, and he has taught finance at the University of Texas at Austin and business strategy at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Through his academic and professional pursuits, Dr. Malernee offers expertise in finance and business strategy as well as an understanding of corporate disclosure and governance practices.

Michael A. Pietrangelo joined our Board of Directors in March 2010. From 1972 through 1989, Mr. Pietrangelo was employed by Schering-Plough Corporation in various capacities including President of the Personal Care Products Group. From 1989 to 1990, he served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Western Publishing Company. From 1990 to 1994, Mr. Pietrangelo was the President and Chief Executive Officer of CLEO, Inc., a subsidiary of Gibson Greetings, Inc. From 1994 until 1998, he served as President of Johnson Products Company, a subsidiary of IVAX Corporation. Since 1998, Mr. Pietrangelo has practiced law at Pietrangelo Cook PLC. Mr. Pietrangelo is also a director of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, a publicly traded pharmaceutical company, serving on the executive committee (Chair), compliance committee (Chair), and nominating and governance committee. Mr. Pietrangelo also serves on the board of directors of the American Parkinson Disease Association, a not-for-profit organization focused on serving the Parkinson’s community, and Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc., a publicly traded insurance holding company. Mr. Pietrangelo currently serves as the managing partner of Theraplex Company LLC, a privately held company. As a result of his diverse professional background, Mr. Pietrangelo offers a unique combination of legal expertise and operational acumen.

Andrew K. Rooke joined our Board of Directors in July 2011. Mr. Rooke owns and manages a private trust company, which specializes in the investment management of publicly held securities and the oversight of a multitude of trust investments. Over the years, he has acquired, managed and sold a number of private companies as well as commercial real estate properties. Mr. Rooke was also previously employed by the former securities firm Kidder, Peabody & Co. With significant experience in financing, analyzing, investing in and managing investments in public and private companies, Mr. Rooke offers expertise in strategic and financial matters.

Michael J. Ryan joined our Board of Directors in May 2011. Mr. Ryan is Director of Corporate Business Development at Boston Scientific, where he leads business development activities in the field of neuromodulation. Prior to joining Boston Scientific in 2005, Mr. Ryan was a Senior Consultant at Decision Resources, providing management consulting services to the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. With his background, Mr. Ryan offers insight into the medical device industry, particularly as it relates to neurological applications.

John N. Spencer, Jr. joined our Board of Directors in March 2010. Mr. Spencer is a certified public accountant and was a partner of Ernst & Young LLP where he spent more than 38 years until his retirement in 2000. Mr. Spencer serves on the board of directors of GeoVax Labs, Inc., a publicly traded biotechnology company, and until April 2009, served on the board of directors of Firstwave Technologies, Inc., formerly a publicly traded customer relationship management software company. In addition, he serves as a consultant to various companies, primarily relating to financial accounting and reporting matters. By virtue of his experience at Ernst & Young, where he was the partner in charge of its life sciences practice for the southeastern United States, together with his continuing expertise as a director of, and a consultant to, other publicly traded and privately held companies, Mr. Spencer offers expertise in accounting, finance and the medical device industry.

69

Table of Contents

Peter G. Piferi joined us in December 2006 as our Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Piferi has over 20 years of experience in the areas of product development, operations, engineering and production in the medical device industry. From March 2003 to December 2006, Mr. Piferi served as Vice President, Endovascular Technologies for Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. In addition, Mr. Piferi has served as Vice President at Kriton Medical Inc. and Orbus Medical Technologies, Inc. and as Director of Advanced Engineering at Cordis Corporation.

David W. Carlson joined us in February 2010 as Vice President, Finance and was promoted to Chief Financial Officer in April 2010. Mr. Carlson has 18 years of experience in financial leadership roles in the medical device industry. From 1999 to 2009, he served in various financial management positions as a Vice President of Finance and Senior Finance Director at Medtronic, Inc., a global leader in medical technologies. He was serving as the Corporate Controller of Sofamor Danek, Inc., a then publicly traded medical device company, when it was acquired by Medtronic, Inc. in 1999. Mr. Carlson is a certified public accountant, and was formerly an auditor for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

Carol J. Barbre joined us in May 2008 as Vice President, Product Management. Ms. Barbre has 20 years of experience in the medical device industry in the areas of marketing and business development, with a focus on new medical therapies. From May 2007 to May 2008, Ms. Barbre served as Senior Director of Marketing for Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, a publicly traded medical device company. From 2002 to May 2007, Ms. Barbre served as Global Marketing Director for Bolton Medical, Inc., a privately held medical device company.

John T. Keane joined us in April 2010 as Vice President, Sales. Mr. Keane has over 20 years of sales experience in the medical device industry. From October 2006 until April 2010, Mr. Keane served as the Worldwide Director of Sales for Stereotactic Surgery, Radiosurgery, Image Guided Surgery, Brain Mapping and Service Agreements for Integra Radionics, Inc., a subsidiary of Integra Lifesciences Corporation, a publicly traded medical device manufacturer. From 2004 to 2006, Mr. Keane served as an Academic Center Representative for I-Flow Corporation, formerly a publicly traded medical device company that merged with a subsidiary of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, a publicly traded corporation, in 2009. From 1996 to 2004, Mr. Keane was the National Leader of Academic Sales Representatives at Baxter International Inc., a publicly traded global, diversified health care company.

Oscar L. Thomas joined us in April 2008 as Vice President, Business Affairs. In addition, Mr. Thomas serves as our Secretary. From January 2003 to April 2008, Mr. Thomas was a partner in the Corporate and Securities Practice Group of the law firm Bass, Berry & Sims PLC.

Board Composition

Our Board of Directors consists of nine members. Each director’s term of office runs from the time of his election until the next following annual meeting of our stockholders and until a successor has been elected or until the director’s earlier death, resignation or removal. Our certificate of incorporation that will become effective upon the effectiveness of this registration statement provides that the authorized number of directors may be changed only by resolution of the Board of Directors and that a director may be removed only for cause by the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of our voting stock.

70

Table of Contents

Item 6 .   Executive Compensation

Compensation Risks

We have assessed our compensation programs and have concluded that our compensation policies and practices do not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on us. Our compensation program is relatively simple and has only three material elements: base salary; annual bonus; and long-term equity compensation. Base salary represents a fixed amount of payment and therefore does not encourage any excessive risk taking. The compensation committee has determined annual bonus amounts by subjectively analyzing company and individual performance for the prior year and only rewarding individual and company performance that, in the opinion of the compensation committee, had a positive effect on stockholder value. The subjective nature of the compensation committee’s determinations regarding both the award and the amount of annual bonuses and equity grants provides a significant control over the incentive of an employee to take undue risk in order to receive a larger annual bonus or equity grant. Finally, our long-term equity compensation program generally involves only the issuance of options to our employees. We believe that the equity component of our compensation program serves to align the interest of management with the interests of stockholders and does not encourage excessive risk taking. Based on the foregoing, we believe that our compensation policies and practices do not create inappropriate or unintended significant risk to the company as a whole. We also believe that our compensation arrangements provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage significant risks; are compatible with effective internal controls and the risk management practices of the company; and are supported by the oversight and administration of the compensation committee with regard to executive compensation programs.

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Introduction

Our compensation discussion and analysis discusses the total compensation for our named executive officers, and it describes our overall compensation philosophy, objectives and practices. Our compensation philosophy and objectives generally apply to all of our employees and all of our employees are eligible to participate in the main components of our compensation program: salary; annual bonus; and equity compensation. The relative value of each of these components for individual employees varies based on job role and responsibility, as well as our financial performance.

Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

Our compensation approach is necessarily tied to our stage of development. Our compensation philosophy is to offer our executive officers, including our named executive officers, compensation and benefits that meet our goals of attracting, retaining and motivating highly skilled management, which is necessary to achieve our financial and strategic objectives and create long-term value for our stockholders. Accordingly, our executive officer compensation program is designed to link compensation to corporate and individual performance and to align executive officers’ interests with stockholder value creation by subjectively analyzing both corporate and individual performance in determining appropriate base salary, bonus and equity compensation awards.

71

Table of Contents

We believe compensation should be determined within a framework that is intended to reward individual contribution and the achievement of company objectives. Within this overall philosophy, our objectives are to: