PART I .

Our pivotal clinical trial demonstrated that T2Candida can deliver actionable results in as few as three hours, with an average time to result during the trial of 4.2 hours, compared to the average time to result of one to six or more days typically required for blood-culture-based diagnostics. We believe the speed of the T2Candida test will enable physicians to potentially make treatment decisions and administer targeted treatment to patients in four to six hours versus 24 to 144 hours for blood culture. We believe that our product candidate, T2Bacteria, will also deliver actionable results in similar timeframes because this diagnostic panel operates similarly to T2Candida and is designed to run on the same instrument as T2Candida. In November 2015, the Company presented preliminary data demonstrating the ability of our T2Bacteria Panel product candidate to provide the rapid and sensitive identification of the six sepsis-causing bacteria included in the panel, directly from whole blood. The six clinically relevant bacteria included in our T2Bacteria Panel are Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecium, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii . The six bacteria in our T2Bacteria Panel were selected because, when combined with the use of T2Candida and the practice of empirically administering broad spectrum antibiotics, the rapid detection of these bacteria may enable 95% of patients with sepsis to receive rapid and appropriate therapy.    

Candida is the fourth leading hospital-acquired bloodstream infection, afflicting more than 135,000 patients per year in the United States, and the most lethal form of common bloodstream infections that cause sepsis, with an average mortality rate of approximately 40%. This high mortality rate is largely due to a delay in providing targeted therapy to the patient due to the elapsed time from Candida infection to positive diagnosis. According to a study published in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, the Candida mortality rate can be reduced to 11% with the initiation of targeted therapy within 12 hours of presentation of symptoms. Additionally, a typical patient with a Candida infection averages 40 days in the hospital, including nine days in intensive care, resulting in an average cost per hospital stay of more than $130,000 per patient. In a study published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, providing targeted antifungal therapy within 24 hours of the presentation of symptoms decreased the length of hospital stay by approximately ten days and decreased the average cost of care by approximately $30,000 per patient.  Furthermore, in April 2015, Future Microbiology published the results of an economic study regarding the use of T2Candida conducted by IMS Health, a healthcare economics agency. In that economic study, IMS demonstrated that an average hospital admitting 5,100 patients at risk for Candida infections could save approximately $5.8 million annually due to decreased hospital stays for patients, reduction in use of antifungal drugs and other associated savings. The economic study further showed T2Candida can potentially reduce the costs of care by $26,887 per Candida patient and that rapid detection of Candida reduces patient deaths by 60.6%. Results from a data analysis of T2Candida for the detection and monitoring of Candida infection and sepsis were published comparing aggregated results from the use of T2Candida to blood culture-based diagnostics for the detection of invasive candidiasis and candidemia. The analysis included samples acquired from more than 1,900 patients. Out of 55 prospective patient cases that were tested with T2Candida and blood culture and determined to be positive or likely to be positive for a Candida infection, T2Candida detected 96.4% of the patients (53 cases) compared to detection of 60% of the patients (33 cases) with blood culture. During 2016, a number of T2Candida users presented data on their experiences with the T2Candida Panel which demonstrated both the clinical and economic benefits of use of the T2Candida Panel in the diagnostic regimen.  The Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan reported data on a pre- and post-T2Candida implementation analysis that covered 6 months of clinical experience. The data showed a statistically significant (p = 0.009) seven day reduction in median Intensive Care Unit, or ICU, length of stay per positive patient that was identified as positive for Candida after implementation of the T2Candida test panel and a trend (p = 0.164) of total hospital length of stay reduction of four days. The data also showed significant reductions in use of antifungal drugs for negative patients tested with T2Candida.  The overall economic savings resulting from these clinical benefits was projected to be approximately $2.3 million on an annualized basis. The Lee Health System in Fort Myers, Florida compared patient and economic experience before and after T2Candida implementation. The data demonstrated that in the post-T2Candida cohort, average length of stay for patients with Candida infections was reduced by 7 days when detected by T2Candida while unnecessary antifungal therapy was avoided in 41% of patients tested and was discontinued after one dose in another 15% of patients tested.  The economic savings derived solely from reduction in antifungal drug use was $195 per patient tested, net of the cost of the T2Candida test panel. Huntsville Hospital in Huntsville, Alabama, reported that the use of the T2Candida test panel resulted in a reduction in the duration of therapy and time to de-escalation in patients that tested negative for Candida on the T2Candida test panel, yielding net pharmacy savings of approximately $280 per patient tested. T2Candida also detected 56% more positive patients than blood culture.  Finally, Riverside Community Hospital in Riverside, California, demonstrated improvements in time to appropriate therapy, increased sensitivity, and rapid discontinuation of antifungal therapy when using T2Candida. Specifically, 83% of patients who tested positive with T2Candida received appropriate therapy within six hours of the blood draw and 100% of patients received appropriate therapy in under nine hours. None of the patients who tested positive had been identified to have been treated with antifungals prior to

T2Candida testing. In addition, antifungal therapy was discontinued for 100% of the patients who tested negative with T2Candida.      

Due to the high mortality rate associated with Candida infections, physicians often will place patients on antifungal drugs while they await blood culture diagnostic results which generally take at least five days to generate a negative test result. Antifungal drugs are toxic and may result in side effects and can cost over $50 per day. Our T2Candida Panel’s speed to result coupled with its superior sensitivity as compared to blood culture may help reduce the overuse of ineffective, or even unnecessary, antimicrobial therapy which may reduce side effects for patients, lower hospital costs and potentially counteract the growing resistance to antifungal therapy. The administration of inappropriate therapy is a driving force behind the spread of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens, which the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the CDC, recently called “one of our most serious health threats.”

Our Strategy

T2MR enables rapid and sensitive direct detection of a range of targets, and we believe it can be used in a variety of diagnostic applications that will improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. Our objective is to establish T2MR as a standard of care for clinical diagnostics. To achieve this objective, our strategy is to:

 Drive Commercial Adoption of Our Sepsis Products by Demonstrating Their Value to Physicians, Laboratory Directors and Hospitals .  We expect our sepsis products to meaningfully improve patient outcomes while reducing costs to hospitals. We have established a targeted, direct sales force in the United States and have partnered with distributors in Europe, all of whom are initially focused on educating physicians and demonstrating our clinical and economic value proposition to hospitals that have the highest populations of at-risk critical care and immunocompromised patients. We believe a sustained focus on these hospitals will drive adoption of the T2Dx, T2Candida, our product candidate, T2Bacteria, and future T2MR-based diagnostics. As a part of this effort, we will continue to work with thought leaders, conduct clinical and health economic studies and seek publication and presentation of these studies.

 Establish a Recurring, Consumables-Based Business Model.  We are pursuing a consumables-based business model for our products by securing placements of the T2Dx at hospitals and driving utilization of our diagnostic panels starting with T2Candida. We believe this strategy will foster a sustainable and predictable business model with recurring revenue streams.

 Broaden Our Addressable Markets in Infectious Disease.  Our product development pipeline includes additional diagnostic panels that provide near-term and complementary market expansion opportunities. Our next sepsis product candidate will focus on bacterial infections, will run on the T2Dx and is expected to address the same high-risk patients as T2Candida, while also expanding our reach to a new patient population at increased risk for bacterial sepsis infections. We will also expand our panels through partnerships similar to our agreement with Allergan, in which Allergan agreed to cover a portion of the costs of our development of certain additional products, including antibiotic resistance tests.  We also are utilizing T2MR to address the challenges of providing rapid and sensitive diagnosis of Lyme disease. In late 2015 we initiated the collection of samples to support clinical trials for T2Bacteria, and in early 2017 we initiated a multi-site clinical trial for T2Bacteria. We are targeting to commercialize these product candidates after obtaining marketing clearance or regulatory clearance.

 Broaden Our Addressable Markets Beyond Infectious Disease.  We intend to expand our product offerings by applying T2MR to new applications beyond sepsis and Lyme disease. We are utilizing T2MR to address the challenges of providing rapid hemostasis monitoring and we plan to conduct internal development and to work with thought leaders, physicians, clinical researchers and business development partners to pursue new applications for T2MR. We believe the benefits of our proprietary technology, including the ability to rapidly and directly detect a broad range of targets, in a wide variety of sample types, will have potential applications within and outside of the in vitro diagnostics market, including environmental, food safety, industrial and veterinary applications. 

 Drive International Expansion.  We are commercializing T2Candida and the T2Dx in Europe through distributors that target large hospitals in their respective markets. We intend to continue to expand in

Europe and other international markets through similar distribution channels. We have received CE marking for T2Candida and the T2Dx and expect to receive CE marking for our T2Bacteria Panel in 2017. 

Our Technology Platform

T2 Magnetic Resonance Technology Overview

We have built an innovative and proprietary technology platform that offers a rapid, sensitive and simple alternative to existing diagnostic methodologies. T2MR is a miniaturized, magnetic resonance-based approach that measures how water molecules react in the presence of magnetic fields. Our proprietary platform is capable of detecting a variety of targets, including:

 molecular targets, such as DNA;

 immunodiagnostics targets, such as proteins; and

 a broad range of hemostasis measurements.

For molecular and immunodiagnostics targets, T2MR utilizes advances in the field of magnetic resonance by deploying particles with magnetic properties that enhance the magnetic resonance signals of specific targets. When particles coated with target-specific binding agents are added to a sample containing the target, the particles bind to and cluster around the target. This clustering changes the microscopic environment of water in that sample, which in turn alters the magnetic resonance signal, or the T2 relaxation signal that we measure, indicating the presence of the target.

For hemostasis measurements, particles are not required because T2MR is highly sensitive to changes in viscosity in a blood sample, such as clot formation, stabilization or dissipation, which changes the T2 relaxation signal. This enables the rapid identification of clinically relevant hemostasis changes.

We also believe T2MR is the first technology that can rapidly and accurately detect the presence of molecular targets within samples without the need for time- and labor-intensive purification or extraction of target molecules from the sample, such as that required by traditional polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, where 90% or more of the target can be lost. We can eliminate these steps because the T2 relaxation signal is not compromised or disrupted by the sample background, even the highly complex sample background that is present after a target amplification process, such as thermocycling. This enables T2MR’s low limit of detection, such as 1 CFU/mL, compared to the 100 to 1,000 CFU/mL typically required for PCR-based methods. Over 100 studies published in peer-reviewed journals have featured T2MR in a breadth of applications, including the direct detection and measurement of targets in various sample types, such as whole blood, plasma, serum, saliva, sputum and urine. We believe our T2MR technology will have potential applications within and outside of the in vitro diagnostics market, including environmental, food safety, industrial and veterinary applications.

Our Instruments

Utilizing T2MR, we have developed and received FDA marketing clearance for the T2Dx, a bench-top instrument for detecting pathogens associated with sepsis and Lyme disease, as well as other applications, and we have developed the T2Plex Instrument, or the T2Plex, a compact, fully integrated instrument for hemostasis applications.

T2Dx

The T2Dx is an easy-to-use, bench-top instrument that is capable of running a broad range of diagnostic tests and is fully automated from patient sample input to result, eliminating the need for manual work flow steps such as pipetting that can introduce risks of cross-contamination. To perform a diagnostic test, the patient sample tube is snapped onto our disposable test cartridge, which is pre-loaded with all necessary reagents. The cartridge is then inserted into the T2Dx, which automatically processes the sample and then delivers a diagnostic test result.

The initial panels designed to run on the T2Dx are T2Candida and T2Bacteria, which are focused on identifying life-threatening pathogens associated with sepsis. In 2014 we received FDA marketing clearance for the T2Dx and T2Candida. In late 2015 we initiated the collection of samples to support clinical trials for T2Bacteria and in early 2017 we initiated a multi-site clinical trial for T2Bacteria. T2Lyme, which is in development, will also run on the T2Dx.

T2Plex

We have also applied T2MR to develop the T2Plex, which is a compact, fully integrated instrument capable of rapidly providing comprehensive hemostasis measurements, including platelet function, clotting time and clot degradation, also known as fibrinolysis.

Sepsis

Overview

Sepsis is an illness in which the body has a severe, inflammatory response to a bacterial or fungal infection. It is a life-threatening condition to which individuals with weakened immune systems or chronic illnesses are highly susceptible. Sepsis can lead to shock and organ failure, and is a leading cause of death in the United States with a mortality rate of approximately 30%, almost double the mortality rate of acute myocardial infarction, or heart attack. One out of every two hospital deaths in the United States is attributable to sepsis.

In 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that sepsis is the most expensive hospital-treated condition in the United States, with an economic burden to hospitals exceeding $23 billion annually, almost

double that of acute myocardial infarction. The high cost of treating sepsis is primarily driven by the extended hospitalization of patients. We believe there are many effective, targeted therapeutic choices that could reduce overall hospitalization costs if applied earlier, but clinicians need to more rapidly identify the specific sepsis-causing pathogens in order to make more informed, targeted treatment decisions. Today, the diagnostic standard to identify these pathogens is blood culture-based, despite typically requiring one to six or more days to generate species-specific results.

The following table reflects key statistics from the 2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study regarding the five most expensive hospital-treated conditions:

Over 1.6 million individuals are diagnosed with sepsis each year, 1.35 million of whom are at high risk for infection due to their suppressed immune system or their presence in critical care units. Virtually all of these patients are rapidly treated with broad-spectrum antibiotic drugs because there is no diagnostic manner for determining the type of infection. Of these 1.35 million patients with sepsis and at high risk for infection, approximately 40% do not respond to broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment. Of these patients that are non-responsive, approximately 25% of them have a Candida infection, with the remaining patients having a bacterial infection. Broad-spectrum antibiotics do not treat these Candida and bacterial infections therefore more targeted drugs are required.

We estimate that approximately 15 million patients are tested for bloodstream infections in the United States annually. Of these, approximately 6.75 million are at high risk for a Candida infection and an additional two million, or approximately 8.75 million, in total are at high risk for a bacterial infection. We believe that our sepsis products have the potential to enable clinicians to make earlier therapeutic decisions that can reduce the mortality rate for sepsis by over 50% and save the hospitals an estimated $12 billion annually by testing all high risk patients with T2Candida and T2Bacteria.

Each year, over 18 million cases of sepsis are diagnosed outside of the United States, with estimated mortalities exceeding five million patients, making sepsis a leading cause of death worldwide.

Limitations of Traditional In Vitro Diagnostics for Sepsis

The current standard for identifying bloodstream infections that cause sepsis requires a series of lengthy and labor-intensive analyses that begin with blood culture. Completing a blood culture requires a large volume of a patient’s blood, typically 20 mLs or more, which is obtained in two 10 mL draws and placed into two blood culture bottles containing nutrients formulated to grow fungi and bacteria. Before blood culture indicates if a patient is infected, pathogens typically must reach a concentration of 1,000,000 to 100,000,000 CFU/mL. This growth process typically takes one to six or more days because the pathogen’s initial concentration in the blood specimen is often less than 10 CFU/mL. A negative test result always requires a minimum of five days. A positive blood culture typically means that some pathogen is present, but additional steps must be performed to identify the specific pathogen in order to provide targeted therapy. These additional steps, which typically must be performed by a highly trained technician, may involve any of (i) a staining procedure for inspection on a microscope slide, (ii) PCR amplification and (iii) mass spectrometry. These steps require a preceding positive blood culture specimen because they need a high concentration of cells generated by the blood culture process for analysis.

For most PCR-based diagnostics, nucleic acid extraction of target cells from the sample is performed to remove inhibitory substances that may interfere with the amplification reaction. While PCR amplifies the target signal, this loss of target cells impairs the ability to detect, resulting in typical limits of detection of 100 to 1,000 CFU/mL, which is insufficient for species-specific sepsis diagnostics.

Blood culture-based diagnostics have substantial limitations, including:

 Time to Result Delays Targeted Treatment.  Blood culture-based diagnostics typically require a minimum of one and as many as six or more days to identify a pathogen species, and blood culture always requires at least five days to generate a negative test result.

 Antimicrobial Therapy Can Cause False Negative Results.  Antimicrobial therapies may be administered to a patient prior to taking a blood sample. As a result, the therapeutic agent is contained in the blood sample and its ability to stop or slow the growth of pathogens can delay or completely inhibit the growth of the pathogen during the blood culture process leading to time delays in detection or false negative results.

 Slow-Growing Pathogens Can Cause False Negative Results.  Some sepsis pathogens grow slowly or not at all and can require up to five or more days to reach sufficient concentrations to be detected by blood culture-based diagnostics. Blood culture procedures are typically stopped after five days and declared negative. Often, pathogens that grow too slowly are not detected by blood culture during this time frame, leading to a false negative diagnosis. For example, C. glabrata , one of the most lethal species of Candida due to its growing resistance to antifungal therapy, often requires more than five days of growth to reach a detectable concentration, and therefore is frequently undetected by blood culture.

 Labor-Intensive Workflow Increases Costs and May Delay Targeted Treatment.  Blood culture is only the first step in identifying a pathogen that causes sepsis. After a blood culture is determined to be positive, highly trained technicians are required to perform multiple post-culture procedures on the blood culture specimen to identify the specific pathogen. These additional procedures can be expensive and time-consuming and may delay targeted treatment.

Given the typical one-to-six day time to result for blood culture-based diagnostics, the first therapy for a patient at risk of sepsis is often broad-spectrum antibiotics, which treat some but not all bacteria types and do not address fungal infections. Some physicians may use first-line, antifungal therapy for patients at very high risk for fungal infection, or use antifungal therapy if the patient is not responding to broad-spectrum antibiotics while they are still awaiting the blood culture-based result. This therapeutic approach may still not treat the growing number of patients infected with the antimicrobial-resistant species nor may it be the best choice, as the type of therapy is dependent on the specific pathogen causing the infection, which is unknown.

This inefficient therapeutic approach has resulted in unnecessary treatment of a significant number of high-risk patients with expensive and often toxic therapies that can worsen a patient’s condition. Such treatments may extend for many days while clinicians await blood culture-based diagnostic results. The overuse of ineffective, or even unnecessary, antimicrobial therapy is also the driving force behind the spread of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens, which the CDC recently called “one of our most serious health threats.” The CDC has specifically noted increasing incidence of Candida infections due to azole- and echinocandin-resistant strains and considers it a “serious” threat level. According to the CDC, at least two million people in the United States acquire serious infections each year that are resistant to one or more of the antimicrobial therapies used to treat these patients. At least 23,000 of these people are estimated to die as a direct result of the resistant infections and many more may die from other conditions that are complicated by a resistant infection. Further, antimicrobial-resistant infections add considerable and avoidable costs to the already overburdened U.S. healthcare system, with the total economic cost estimated to be as high as $20 billion in excess of direct healthcare costs, with additional costs to society as high as $35 billion, due to lost productivity.

Our Solution

T2MR delivers what we believe no other technology currently available can: a rapid, sensitive and simple diagnostic platform that enables sepsis applications, including T2Candida and our product candidate, T2Bacteria that can identify specific sepsis pathogens directly from an unpurified blood sample in hours instead of days at a level of accuracy equal to or better than blood culture-based diagnostics.  We believe T2MR sepsis applications provide a pathway for more rapid and targeted treatment of infections, potentially reducing the mortality rate by as much as 75% if a patient is treated within 12 hours of suspicion of infection and significantly reducing the cost burden of sepsis. Each year, approximately 500,000 patients in the United States die from sepsis. According to a study published by Critical Care Medicine in 2006, in sepsis patients with documented hypotension, administration of effective antimicrobial

therapy within the first hour of detection was associated with a survival rate of 79.9% and, over the ensuing six hours, each hour of delay in initiation of treatment was associated with an average decrease in survival of 7.6%; the survival rate for septic patients who remained untreated for greater than 36 hours was approximately 5%.

We believe T2MR sepsis applications address a significant unmet need in in vitro diagnostics by providing:

 Limits of Detection as Low as 1 CFU/mL.  T2MR is the only technology currently available that can enable identification of sepsis pathogens directly from a patient’s blood sample at limits of detection as low as 1 CFU/mL.

 Rapid and Specific Results in as Few as Three Hours.  T2MR is the only technology that can enable species-specific results for pathogens associated with sepsis, directly from a patient’s blood sample, without the need for blood culture, to deliver an actionable result in three hours.

 Accurate Results Even in the Presence of Antimicrobial Therapy.  T2MR is the only technology that can reliably detect pathogens associated with sepsis, including slow-growing pathogens, such as C. glabrata , directly from a patient’s blood sample, even in the presence of an antimicrobial therapy.

 Easy-to-Use Platform.  T2MR eliminates the need for sample purification or extraction of target pathogens, enabling sample- to-result instruments that can be operated on-site by hospital staff, without the need for highly skilled technicians.

Our first FDA-cleared products, the T2Dx and T2Candida, focus on the most lethal form of common blood stream infections that cause sepsis, Candida , which has an average mortality rate of approximately 40%, and according to a 2005 report published in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy , this high mortality rate can be reduced to 11% with the initiation of targeted therapy within 12 hours of presentation of symptoms. Currently, a typical patient with a Candida infection averages 40 days in the hospital, including nine days in intensive care, resulting in an average cost per hospital stay of over $130,000 per patient.  In a study published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in 2009, providing targeted antifungal therapy within 24 hours of the presentation of symptoms decreased the length of hospital stay by approximately ten days and decreased the average cost of care by approximately $30,000 per patient. In addition, many hospitals initiate antifungal drugs, such as Caspofungin or Micafungin, while waiting for blood culture-based diagnostic results. We estimate this practice costs approximately $500 per patient and is currently in use for over 40% of high-risk patients on average and for all high-risk patients in some hospitals. A negative result from T2Candida can provide timely data allowing physicians to avoid unnecessary antifungal treatment and potentially reduce the treatment cost further.

We believe that by identifying the specific species of Candida , physicians can administer the most effective therapy, which will significantly improve patient outcomes and reduce hospital costs. We further believe that the adoption of the T2Dx and T2Candida can decrease both the high mortality rate and excessive costs of Candida infections because these products can enable clinicians to make earlier and more informed decisions by providing positive test results to direct therapy and negative test results to reduce the use of antifungal drugs.

We are also developing T2Bacteria, a multiplex diagnostic panel that detects the major bacterial pathogens associated with sepsis that are frequently not covered by first-line antibiotics. T2Bacteria will also run on the T2Dx and is expected to address the same approximately 6.75 million symptomatic high-risk patients as T2Candida while also expanding our reach to a new population of patients who are at increased risk for bacterial infections, including an additional two million people presenting with symptoms of infection in the emergency room setting. We expect that T2Bacteria will achieve similar performance capabilities and provide similar benefits as T2Candida.

Clinical Utility

direcT2 Clinical Trial—Clinical Infectious Disease

In 2013 and 2014, we conducted a pivotal clinical trial for our T2Dx Instrument and our T2Candida Panel, or the direcT2 trial. Our direcT2 trial consisted of two patient arms. The first arm, known as the Prospective Arm, consisted of 1,501 samples from patients with a possible infection. The second arm, known as the Contrived Arm, consisted of 300 samples, of which 250 patient specimens were labeled contrived because each contained a known quantity of Candida  

CFUs that were manually added to each sample, or spiked, at clinically relevant concentrations, while the remaining 50 patient specimens were specifically known not to contain Candida . The direcT2 trial was designed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of T2Candida on the T2Dx.

Sensitivity is the percent concordance, or the percentage of sample results that agree with a reference, or comparative, method for positive results. Specificity is the percent concordance to a reference method for negative results. If a sample does not agree with the result of a referenced method, it is considered discordant. In our clinical trial, the Prospective Arm was compared to blood culture and the Contrived Arm was compared to the known state, which means that it was in the known presence or absence of added Candida organisms.

The design of the direcT2 trial was reviewed by the FDA as part of pre-submission communications. The purpose of the direcT2 trial was to determine the clinical performance of T2Candida running on the T2Dx by identifying the following:

 clinical specificity of T2Candida results as compared to Candida negative blood culture results in specimens collected from patients in the Prospective Arm;

 clinical specificity of T2Candida results as compared to Candida negative samples collected from patients in the Contrived Arm;

 clinical sensitivity of T2Candida results as compared to the known Candida -positive specimens collected from patients in the Contrived Arm; and

 clinical sensitivity calculations of T2Candida results compared to the Candida -positive blood culture results in specimens collected from patients in the Prospective Arm.

50 known negative samples and 250 contrived samples (50 samples for each of the five Candida species included in the T2Candida Panel) were prepared and run in a blinded manner at the same clinical sites used for processing the prospective samples. The positive contrived samples were prepared by spiking clinical isolates into individual patient specimens at concentrations determined through publications and discussions with the FDA to be equivalent to the clinical state of patients who presented with symptoms of a Candida infection. 20% of the positive contrived samples were spiked at concentrations levels of less than 1 CFU/mL. The contrived samples were collected from patients referred for a diagnostic blood culture per routine standard of care — the same population of patients from whom prospective samples were collected. Unique isolates of the species were used for each patient sample, which means a total of 50 unique isolates were tested for each of the five species of Candida for a total of 250 unique isolates.

In addition to the pivotal clinical trial data that we submitted to the FDA, we also provided data from an analytical verification study to determine the limit of detection, or LoD, for each species identified by our T2Candida Panel. The LoD was defined as the lowest concentration of Candida that can be detected in 95% of at least 20 samples tested at a single concentration.

The T2Candida Panel reports three results, where species are grouped together according to their responsiveness to therapy. Candida albicans and/or Candida tropicalis are reported as a single result, Candida parapsilosis is a single result, and Candida krusei and/or Candida glabrata are reported as a single result. Specificity and sensitivity are calculated for each reported result.

There are five relevant species of Candida , each of which were analyzed in the direcT2 trial. Each are listed in abbreviated form in the tables below. These species are Candida albicans ,   Candida tropicalis ,   Candida parapsilosis ,   Candida krusei , and Candida glabrata . The typical naming convention for a species is to abbreviate by using the first letter of the first word and the full second word; for example, Candida krusei is abbreviated as C. krusei . In the tables below, we also abbreviate each species name by the first letter of the second word; for example, Candida albicans and Candida tropicalis is A/T.

The following tables illustrate the results of the direcT2 trial. The primary sensitivity and specificity analysis is presented in Table A, followed by sub-analyses in Tables B and C. Additional data on the LoD and the time to results of T2Candida and the T2Dx are included in the remaining tables.

Table H

Time to species identification or negative result for T2MR and Blood Culture

(1) Includes samples that are 100% concordant for both methods (i.e. does not include discordant results). We do not include discordant results because a comparison of the duration of time to positive result requires that both the blood culture result and the T2Candida result be positive for a given specimen.  Similarly, a comparison of the duration of time to negative result requires that both the blood culture result and the T2Candida result be negative for a given specimen.  We therefore would exclude any sample with a discordant result where blood culture yields one result and T2Candida yields the opposite result.

(2) Refers to time to species identification or final negative result.

Results from the study were published in Clinical Infectious Disease in 2015 in an article entitled: “T2 Magnetic Resonance Assay for the Rapid Diagnosis of Candidemia in Whole Blood: A Clinical Trial.” The study findings include:

 the overall sensitivity (Prospective and Contrived Arm combined) of T2Candida was 91.1%;

 the average specificity of the three test results for the Prospective and Contrived Arms combined was 99.4% (see Table A) with the specificity by test result ranging from 98.9% to 99.9% (see Table B);

 in the Contrived Arm of the study, the average specificity was 99.8%, with the specificity by test result ranging from 99.6% to 100% (see Table C);

 in the Prospective Arm of the study, the average specificity was 99.3%, with the specificity by test result ranging from 98.8% to 99.9% (see Table C);

 in the Contrived Arm of the study, the average sensitivity was 91.6%, with the sensitivity by test result ranging from 88.0% to 94.0% (see Table C); and

 in the Prospective Arm of the study, the average sensitivity was 71.4% (see Table C).

In this study, the following observations were reported:

 within the Prospective Arm, T2Candida accurately detected a rare co-infection in one study patient with C. albicans and C. parapsilosis in their bloodstream;

 T2Candida detected at least one infection that was not identified by blood culture, which was determined to be a Candida infection seven days after the T2Candida result was obtained. This case is considered a discordant result for the purposes of the FDA filing because of the disagreement between T2Candida and the blood culture-based results, despite the accurate identification by T2Candida. Along with ten other patients with clinical symptoms or microbiological evidence of infection, the study findings indicate that the true sensitivity and specificity of T2Candida may be higher than the reported values;

 the LoD of T2Candida was demonstrated to be 1 to 3 CFU/mL depending upon the species of Candida (see Table D). In the Contrived Arm of the study, T2Candida positively detected 97.9% of the samples spiked at and above the LoD while also detecting 72.6% of all samples spiked at concentration levels below the LoD (see Table E);

 in the Contrived Arm of the study, T2Candida detected 97% of cases at or above 1 CFU/mL and 70% of cases below 1 CFU/mL (see Table F);

 in the Contrived Arm of the study, T2Candida detected 98% of cases at or above clinically relevant concentrations of Candida , ranging from 95% to 100% detection depending on the Candida species (see Table G);

 T2Candida demonstrated an average time to positive result of 4.4 hours compared to blood culture average time to result of 129 hours;

 T2Candida demonstrated an average time to negative result of 4.2 hours compared to blood culture average time to result of >120 hours; and

 T2Candida has a negative predictive value of 99.8% in a standard population. Negative predictive value is the probability that subjects with a negative result truly do not have the disease.

The authors of the study made the following conclusions based on the study results:

 Because mortality due to invasive candidiasis has remained high and unchanged for the past two decades and early initiation of appropriate antifungal therapy has been reported to reduce mortality by at least two-thirds, the rapid and accurate diagnostic capability offered by this novel technology has the potential to change the management and prognosis of the disease.

 The ability to rapidly and accurately exclude the possibility of candidemia can have significant implications in clinical practice, by decreasing the number of patients who need to be on empiric antifungal therapy, and thus decreasing the incidence of resistant strains, the potential of side effects of antifungal treatment, and substantial healthcare costs.

 A key advantage of T2MR over other biosensors is that it does not require culture and sample purification or preparation.

Massachusetts General Hospital Study — Science Translational Medicine

We co-authored a study with investigators from Massachusetts General Hospital, or MGH, to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of T2MR to detect Candida compared to blood culture-based diagnostics. Results from the study were published in an article entitled “T2 Magnetic Resonance Enables Nanoparticle-Mediated Rapid Detection of Candidemia in Whole Blood” in Science Translational Medicine in 2013. In this study:

 T2MR was tested across 320 contrived whole blood samples, each containing one of the five clinically relevant species of Candida , and was able to detect each of the species at an LoD ranging from 1 to 3 CFU/mL.

 T2MR was tested across 24 whole blood specimens from patients exhibiting symptoms of sepsis, with eight Candida positive, eight bacteria positive and eight negative samples. Results showed 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity of T2MR when compared with blood culture results for identification of Candida .

 In patients with Candida treated with antifungal therapy, T2MR detected the presence of Candida in patient samples drawn up to four days after antifungal administration, while blood culture failed to identify the infection upon administration of antifungal therapy.

University of Houston Study — Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease

We sponsored an independent study at the University of Houston to directly compare the sensitivity and time to result of T2Candida running on the T2Dx and blood culture-based diagnostics. In this study, contrived blood samples were split between T2Candida using the T2Dx and standard blood culture. The study showed improved performance of T2Candida over blood culture in terms of speed and sensitivity. The following findings were published in an article entitled “Comparison of the T2Dx Instrument with T2Candida Diagnostic Panel and Automated Blood Culture in the Detection of Candida Species Using Seeded Blood Samples” in Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease in 2013:

 T2Candida detected all of the samples of C. glabrata at concentrations of 2.8 CFU/mL, while blood culture was not able to detect C. glabrata in any of the samples, even at a higher concentration of 11 CFU/mL and with the standard five-day run time.

 T2Candida detected all of the samples for all of the species of Candida at concentration levels of 3.1 to 11 CFU/mL.

 The average time to species identification was approximately three hours for T2Candida, as opposed to over 60 hours for blood culture.

The following table summarizes the results of our University of Houston study. The five relevant species of Candida were analyzed in the University of Houston study.

Contrived blood samples at concentrations between 3.1 — 11 CFU/mL

Clinical Data Review of T2MR and T2Candida—Future Microbiology

Dr. Michael Pfaller (T2 Biosystems Chief Medical Officer), Donna Wolk, PhD (Geisinger Health System), and Tom Lowery, PhD (T2 Biosystems Chief Scientific Officer) collaborated to perform a meta-analysis of T2MR and T2Candida data that was published in Future Microbiology in 2015 with the title T2MR and T2Candida: novel technology for the rapid diagnosis of candidemia and invasive candidiasis . The article had the following overall summary statements and conclusions:

 There is an urgent need to rapidly and accurately detect and identify fungal pathogens. Current culture-based methodologies are too slow and, with some organisms like C. glabrata , may fail altogether due to the insensitivity of some blood culture systems to detect this slow-growing species. 

 The development and FDA approval of the T2Candida Panel represents the advent of a new class of infectious disease diagnostics that enable rapid, direct detection and identification of pathogens in a culture-independent manner. The new panel will reduce the time to detection and species identification for common Candida species.

 As of the date of publication of the article, the T2Candida Panel had identified over 31 cases of candidemia and 12 cases of candidiasis. In the latter 12 cases, blood culture was unable to detect any of those proven infections. There were an additional ten patients with probable or suspected invasive candidiasis, but patient record review was not available to include these cases. More specifically, across all studies to date,

T2Candida had successfully detected 43 of 45 patients with confirmed candidemia (31/33) or candidiasis (12/12). When including patients with probable candidiasis, T2Candida detected 10 of 10 patients, totaling 53 of 55 cases detected for candidemia or candidiasis. In this aggregate population, blood culture only detected 33 of 55 patients.  Table 7 from the article summarizes the data showing increases in sensitivity for T2Candida vs. blood culture.

Customer Presentations

In 2016, four customers reported on their experiences with the T2Candida Panel. Below is a summary of those reports.

Lyme Disease

We believe that T2MR can also address the significant unmet need associated with Lyme disease, a tick-borne illness that can cause prolonged neurological disease and musculoskeletal disease. For patients with Lyme disease, early diagnosis and appropriate treatment significantly reduces both the likelihood of developing neurological and

musculoskeletal disorders, as well as the significant costs associated with treating these complications. Multiple diagnostic methods are used to test for Lyme disease today, which are labor-intensive, can take weeks to process, and are subject to high false negative rates due to their inability to detect the disease, making each method unreliable in the diagnosis of the condition. Because of these limitations, patients are frequently misdiagnosed or are delayed in the diagnosis of this disease.

According to the CDC, Lyme disease affects approximately 30,000 people in the U.S. each year, but the CDC also estimates that the actual number is closer to 360,000 due to under-reporting because of poor diagnostic methods. Approximately 3.4 million tests are run for Lyme disease each year, including serology testing, PCR techniques and blood culture, which has low sensitivity and takes approximately two to three weeks to provide results.  Inadequate identification of Lyme disease may lead to antibiotic resistance, significant costs, and transmission of the disease through healthcare procedures such as blood transfusion. The misdiagnosis of Lyme disease has been reported to have an annual cost of more than $10,000 per patient in the United States, representing over $3 billion per year.

Our product candidate, T2Lyme is designed to identify the bacteria that cause Lyme disease directly from the patient’s blood, without the need for blood culture which, for the bacteria associated with Lyme disease, can take several weeks. The test panel is expected to be run on the T2Dx Instrument, the same instrument currently used to run our T2Candida test panel and in the future, our T2Bacteria Panel product candidate. We anticipate the T2Lyme test panel to benefit from similar advantages provided by T2MR as the T2Candida Panel, including high sensitivity, high specificity, ease of use and rapid time to result. T2Lyme may provide accurate and timely diagnosis of Lyme disease and may prevent the evolution of the disease to its later stages with associated neurological and musculoskeletal diseases.

We expect that existing CPT codes will be used to facilitate reimbursement of our T2Lyme diagnostic panel.

The T2Lyme Panel identifies the microorganisms responsible for most cases of Lyme disease in North America and Europe. These three species of Borrelia are B. afzelii ,   B. garinii , and B. burgdorferi and are detected directly in whole blood using T2MR and the same methodology used in the T2Candida and T2Bacteria tests. Preliminary data demonstrate that the detection of three species of Borrelia at limits of detection as low as 10 cells/mL was achieved in spiked whole blood and detection of spirochetes in clinical samples from patients with early stage Lyme disease has been demonstrated using T2MR.

In 2016 Dr. Tom Lowery, our Chief Scientific Officer, presented on the T2Lyme Panel at a forum titled “Diagnostic Tests for Lyme Disease: A Reassessment” held at the Banbury Center of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. In this presentation he reported preliminary T2Lyme limit of detection data that consisted of N=60 replicates for each target species consisting of three spike preparations of N=20 across three successive days prepared with a quantitative spiking method. Positivity rates were ≥95% for B. afzelii and B. burgdorferi at 5 cells/mL and B. garinii at 8 cells/mL. Additionally, Dr. Lowery shared data from initial clinical samples. Samples were frozen, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid whole blood samples from patients diagnosed with Early Stage Lyme disease at the Gunderson Clinic in Wisconsin. All 21 samples had confirmed Erythema multiforme lesions and were tested with a Gunderson Clinic PCR test and the T2Lyme T2MR test. Only one sample tested positive by PCR, which was confirmed by T2MR. Seven additional samples were tested negative by PCR but were tested positive by T2MR. Of the 21 samples, 8 were positive for B. burgdorferi by T2MR, demonstrating that T2MR can detect Borrelia cells in blood samples from infected patients.

Hemostasis

Another significant unmet clinical need is the diagnosis and management of impaired hemostasis, which is a life-threatening condition in which a patient is unable to promote the formation of blood clots to stabilize excessive bleeding. Within the broader population of patients with symptoms of impaired hemostasis, there are over ten million trauma patients in the United States annually. These trauma patients typically face life-threatening injuries or invasive surgical procedures. Approximately 25% of trauma patients have impaired hemostasis, which frequently goes undetected during the initial hospitalization. According to a study in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons, for trauma patients with symptoms of impaired hemostasis, mortality rates were reduced from 45% to 19% with more rapid delivery of therapy. Today, there is no hemostasis diagnostic method that can rapidly provide comprehensive results. We estimate that rapid, targeted treatment for trauma patients with impaired hemostasis can reduce healthcare costs in the United States by nearly $2 billion each year due to more efficient utilization of scarce and expensive blood products and more rapid patient stabilization, reducing length of hospital stays by approximately 20%.

Because the hemostasis status of trauma patients changes frequently, patients are on average tested three times per episode, which we estimate results in approximately 13 million hemostasis tests performed annually on trauma patients in the United States alone. We believe this unmet need represents a nearly $1 billion annual market opportunity, which will be the initial focus for the T2Plex and T2HemoStat.

Existing hemostasis screening methods have a range of limitations. Such screening can require:

• up to 24 hours to provide a diagnosis;

• large volumes of blood from patients;

• as many as five separate instruments to provide comprehensive results;

• highly skilled technicians; and

• specialty laboratories.

The T2Plex and T2HemoStat are designed to utilize T2MR and are designed to provide hemostasis measurements in less than 45 minutes. Our product candidate, T2HemoStat, is a comprehensive panel of diagnostic tests that can provide data across the hemostasis spectrum, including measurements of fibrinogen, platelet activity, and clot lysis. We believe that T2HemoStat may be the first panel capable of rapidly identifying key coagulation, platelet and other hematologic factors directly from whole blood on a single, easy-to-operate, compact instrument that will provide all of the following benefits:

• comprehensive results in 45 minutes or less;

• results from clinical samples as small as a finger stick of blood;

• replacement of up to five instruments with one compact instrument;

• easy-to-use system, not requiring highly skilled technicians to operate; and

• small, tabletop instrument that can be used at the point of care.

We expect that existing DRG and Current Procedural Terminology, or CPT codes, will be used to facilitate reimbursement of our hemostasis diagnostic products.

While the panel of HemoStat diagnostic tests is focused on addressing the unmet need for trauma patients, T2HemoStat can be expanded to add diagnostic tests that can address the needs of the broader population of patients with impaired hemostasis.

We also believe T2MR will be able to identify novel biomarkers with important clinical utility. For example, in a 2014 peer-reviewed article featured on the cover of the journal, Blood, T2MR was used to identify a new clot structure that has potential as a novel biomarker which could provide additional actionable information to manage patients with impaired hemostasis after trauma.

The company is exploring partnership opportunities to complete the development and commercialization of these products.

Sales, Marketing and Distribution

We are working to drive awareness and adoption of our T2MR technology and related products by building a direct sales force in the United States, initially targeting high-volume hospitals, and continuing to educate physicians, key decision makers and thought leaders through publishing scientific data in peer-reviewed journals, presenting at major industry conferences and conducting and supporting clinical studies.     We have added a small team of employees in Europe to support our network of European distributors.

During 2016 we expanded our direct sales force to 18 commissioned representatives, excluding managers. Our sales representatives, employing a clinical data-driven sales approach, focus on the clinical performance of our products, the improved outcomes for patients and the economic value for hospitals, including customizable budgetary impact analysis. They demonstrate the ease-of-use of our products and the advantages of our products over blood culture-based diagnostics. We plan to continue to invest in our direct sales force as we expand both the array of diagnostic panels and our customer reach.

Today, our sales force markets the T2Dx and T2Candida directly to hospitals in the United States, initially targeting the 450 hospitals treating the largest number of high-risk patients. We estimate that these 450 centers annually treat an average of over 5,000 symptomatic patients at high risk for a Candida infection, representing over one-third of the expected market for T2Candida. If these leading institutions adopt our technology, we expect a positive network effect in the hospital community, accelerating adoption of T2Candida. We believe key aspects of healthcare reform, including the focus on cost containment, risk-sharing, and outcomes-based treatment and reimbursement, align with the value proposition of our sepsis products, contributing positively to their adoption. We believe the key decision-makers at hospitals will be infectious disease and critical care physicians, laboratory directors, the hospital pharmacy and hospital administrators. In response to the severity and complexity of managing bloodstream infections, a growing number of hospitals have instituted antimicrobial stewardship committees to control hospital practices related to infections, including the use of antibiotic and antifungal therapy. These committees typically include the key decision-makers, and we believe they will provide a central forum to present the benefits of our products. In addition, we plan to continue to publish scientific data in peer-reviewed journals, present at major industry conferences and conduct and support clinical trials to provide additional data relative to the performance of T2Candida to these decision-makers.

Outside of the United States, we have received regulatory approvals in Europe and expect to seek regulatory approvals in other international markets and to launch our platform through distributor partners who will deploy a similar model to our sales approach in the United States.  In July 2014, we received CE marking for T2Candida and the T2Dx. As of the end of 2016, we had distributors in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway.  These distributors have extensive knowledge of infectious diseases and microbiology.  They have strong, existing relationships with European thought leaders in these areas and have good relationships with important hospitals in their respective countries.  We continue to develop partner relationships in other key European markets and will further investigate potential distribution channels in other key markets around the world.  We have employed a small team of direct sales/marketing and field service providers to support the efforts of our distributors in the European Union, or the EU. 

Manufacturing

We manufacture our proprietary T2Dx at our manufacturing facility in Lexington, Massachusetts and our T2Candida reagent trays at our manufacturing facility in Wilmington, Massachusetts. We perform all instrument and tray manufacturing and packaging of final components in accordance with applicable guidelines for medical device manufacturing. We outsource manufacturing of our T2Candida consumable cartridge to a contract manufacturing organization. Our particles are supplied by a sole source supplier, GE Healthcare. We believe we can secure arrangements with other suppliers on commercially reasonable terms for the products and parts we outsource.

We have implemented a quality management system designed to comply with FDA regulations and International Standards Organization, or ISO, standards governing medical device products. These regulations govern the design, manufacture, testing, release and service of diagnostic products as well as raw material receipt and control. We have received ISO 13485:2012 registration from the National Standards Authority of Ireland. Our key outsourcing partners are ISO-certified.

We plan to continue to manufacture components that we determine are proprietary or require special processes to produce, while outsourcing the manufacture of more commodity-like components. We expect to establish additional outsourcing partnerships as we manufacture more products. We believe our facility in Wilmington, Massachusetts is adequate to meet our current manufacturing needs and that additional manufacturing space is readily available for future expansion.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technologies that we believe are important to our business, and seek to obtain and maintain patents for any patentable aspects of our product and product candidates, including their methods of use and any other inventions that are important to the development of our business. Our success will depend significantly on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important proprietary technology, inventions and know-how related to our business, including our methods, processes and product candidate designs, and our ability to defend and enforce our patents, maintain our licenses to use intellectual property owned by third parties, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. We also rely on trademarks, copyrights, know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen, and maintain our proprietary position in the fields targeted by our products and product candidates. Protecting these rights is a primary focus in our relationships with other parties, and we seek to protect such rights, in part, by entering into confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements with such third parties and including protections for such proprietary information and intellectual property rights in our other contracts with such third parties, including material transfer agreements, licenses and research agreements.

We are the owner or licensee of over 50 patents and over 50 patent applications and possess substantial know-how and trade secrets which protect various aspects of our business and products. The patent families comprising our patent portfolio are primarily focused on protection of a range of general and specific attributes of our proprietary assay architecture and assay instrumentation for our T2Candida product and our T2Bacteria and T2Lyme product candidates, as well as protection of certain aspects of the conduct of the assays and detection of analytes. We also own several patent families covering various aspects of our T2HemoStat assay, including the assay architecture and conduct of the analysis. The issued patents in our patent families that cover T2Candida and T2Bacteria are expected to expire between 2023 and 2031, while additional pending applications covering T2Candida and T2Bacteria would be expected, if issued, to expire as late as 2037.  The issued patents in our patent families that cover T2HemoStat are expected to expire between 2029 and 2032, while additional pending applications covering T2HemoStat, if issued, will be expected to expire as late as 2037.  The issued patents in our patent families that cover T2Lyme are expected to expire between 2023 and 2031, while additional pending applications covering T2Lyme would be expected, if issued, to expire as late as 2037.  In all cases, the expiration dates are subject to any extension that may be available under applicable law.

Proprietary Rights and Processes

We rely, in some circumstances, on proprietary technology and processes (including trade secrets) to protect our technology. However, these can be difficult to protect. We require all full-time and temporary employees, scientific advisors, contractors and consultants working for us who have access to our confidential information to execute confidentiality agreements in order to safeguard our proprietary technologies, methods, processes, know-how, and trade secrets. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our proprietary technology and processes by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. All of our full-time and temporary employees and independent contractors and consultants are also bound by invention assignment obligations, pursuant to which rights to all inventions and other types of intellectual property conceived by them during the course of their employment are assigned to us.

While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. To the extent that our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors, or any future collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions. Further, any of our intellectual property and proprietary rights could be challenged, invalidated, circumvented, infringed or misappropriated, or such intellectual property and proprietary rights may not be sufficient to provide competitive advantages. For more information, please see “Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

Trademarks

We seek trademark and service mark protection in key markets to safeguard our brand and the brands of our products and product candidates. We intend to file trademark registration applications in the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions to continue to strengthen our brand.

License Agreements

License Agreement with Massachusetts General Hospital

In 2006, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with MGH, pursuant to which MGH granted to us an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license under certain patent rights to make, use, import and commercialize products and processes for diagnostic, industrial and research and development purposes. In 2008 and 2011, we amended our agreement with MGH to add patent rights and to modify, among other things, our diligence and payment obligations.

We are required to use reasonable commercial efforts to develop and make available to the public products and processes covered by the agreement, and to achieve specified organizational, development and commercialization milestones by specified dates. To date, we have met all of our diligence obligations pursuant to this agreement.

We paid MGH an upfront fee and issued to MGH shares of our common stock equal to a low single-digit percentage of our then-outstanding common stock, subject to limited adjustments to prevent dilution in certain circumstances. In addition, we are responsible for reimbursing MGH’s costs associated with prosecution and maintenance of the patent rights licensed to us under the agreement. We will also be required to make payments for achievement of specified regulatory milestones with respect to products and processes covered by the agreement. In addition, we are required to pay an annual license maintenance fee, which is creditable against any royalty payments we are obligated to make to MGH under the agreement.

We are required to pay royalties to MGH on net sales of products and processes that are covered by patent rights licensed to us under the agreement at percentages in the low single digits, subject to reductions and offsets in specified circumstances. The products and processes covered by the agreement include T2Candida, T2Bacteria and other particle-based T2MR panels that we may develop in the future. Our royalty obligations, if any, and their duration, will depend on the specific patent rights covering the product or process being sold, and the particular category of product or process, as noted above. With respect to T2Candida and T2Bacteria and other potential particle-based T2MR panels we may develop in the future, our obligation to pay royalties to MGH will expire upon the later of ten years after the first commercial sale of the first product or process in the particular category and the expiration of the patent rights licensed to us under the agreement. We will also be required to pay to MGH a low double-digit percentage of specified gross revenue that we receive from our sublicensees. In addition, we will be required to pay royalties to MGH of less than one percent on net sales of specified products and processes that are not covered by the patent rights licensed to us under the agreement. Our obligation to pay royalties to MGH with respect to such products and processes will expire upon the earlier of 12 years after the first commercial sale of the first such product or process and the termination by MGH of all of the licenses granted to us under the agreement.

We have the right to terminate our agreement with MGH for any reason upon 90 days’ written notice to MGH. MGH may terminate our agreement in its entirety if we fail to make a payment required under the agreement and do not cure such failure within a specified time period, if we fail to maintain adequate insurance coverage or if we become insolvent. MGH may also terminate our agreement, with respect to a given category of products or processes, on 60 days’ notice for our uncured breach with respect to such category of products or processes. Absent earlier termination, our agreement with MGH will remain in force until the later of the expiration or abandonment of the licensed patents and patent applications, and the expiration of our obligations under the agreement.

Supply Agreement with SMC Ltd.

We are currently party to a supply agreement with SMC Ltd. for the supply and manufacture of products related to plastic injection molding, including the consumable cartridge used in connection with the T2Candida Panel.  The agreement contains other terms and conditions generally consistent with an agreement for the manufacture and supply of materials or products for use in the development and commercialization of biotechnology products such as our products and product candidates, including with respect to ordering, supply of such product in accordance with specifications, and quality assurance and quality control activities.

The supply agreement may be terminated prior to the end of its term upon the occurrence of certain specified events and further provides that upon termination, including upon the expiration of the term, SMC shall continue to manufacture and ship products subject to outstanding purchase orders and the Company shall be responsible for

purchasing finished products, inventory, raw materials and work-in-progress held by SMC to the extent SMC, after the use of commercially reasonable efforts to use such inventory, cannot use such inventory in a financially viable way.

Competition

While we believe that we are currently the only diagnostic company developing products with the potential to identify pathogens associated with bloodstream infections in a variety of unpurified patient sample types at limits of detection as low as 1 CFU/mL, we compete with commercial diagnostics companies for the limited resources of our customers.  Our principal competition is from a number of companies that offer platforms and applications in our target sepsis and hemostasis markets, most of which are more established commercial organizations with considerable name recognition and significant financial resources.

Companies that currently provide traditional blood culture-based diagnostics include Becton Dickinson & Co. and bioMerieux, Inc. In addition, companies offering post-culture species identification using both molecular and non-molecular methods include bioMerieux, Inc. (and its affiliate, BioFire Diagnostics, Inc.), Bruker Corporation, Accelerate Diagnostics, Luminex, Genmark, Cepheid and Beckman Coulter, a Danaher company.  These post-culture competitors rely on a positive result from blood culture in order to perform their tests, significantly prolonging their results when compared to T2MR. Some of the products offered by our competitors require hours of extensive hands-on labor by an operator, while some rely on high concentrations of pathogens present in a positive blood culture, which can require a final concentration of at least 1,000,000 CFU/mL. In addition, there may be a number of new market entrants in the process of developing other post-blood culture diagnostic technologies that may be perceived as competitive with our technology.

We believe that we have a number of competitive advantages, including:

 T2MR’s ability to detect targets directly in complex and high volume samples, eliminating the need for sample extraction and purification;

 T2MR’s ability to detect a broad range of targets, providing a wide variety of potential applications both within and outside of the in vitro diagnostics market;

 T2MR’s ability to provide rapid and highly-sensitive diagnostic results, which can provide timely information to assist physicians and hospitals to make therapeutic decisions that can improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs;

 our ability to develop easily operable products for end users;

 our initial applications in the field of sepsis that we believe will not require separate reimbursement codes due to the established payment and reimbursement structure in place; and

 our initial applications may provide substantial economic benefits to hospitals that can accrue the savings related to the rapid treatment of sepsis patients.

Government Regulation

Our products under development and our operations are subject to significant government regulation. In the United States, our products are regulated as medical devices by the FDA and other federal, state, and local regulatory authorities.

FDA Regulation of Medical Devices

The FDA and other U.S. and foreign governmental agencies regulate, among other things, with respect to medical devices:

 design, development and manufacturing;

 testing, labeling, content and language of instructions for use and storage;

 clinical trials;

 product safety;

 marketing, sales and distribution;

 pre-market clearance and approval;

 record keeping procedures;

 advertising and promotion;

 recalls and field safety corrective actions;

 post-market surveillance, including reporting of deaths or serious injuries and malfunctions that, if they were to recur, could lead to death or serious injury;

 post-market approval studies; and

 product import and export.

In the United States, numerous laws and regulations govern all the processes by which medical devices are brought to market and marketed. These include the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and the FDA’s implementing regulations, among others.

FDA Pre-market Clearance and Approval Requirements

Each medical device we seek to commercially distribute in the United States must first receive 510(k) clearance, de novo down classification, or pre-market approval from the FDA, unless specifically exempted by the FDA. The FDA classifies all medical devices into one of three classes. Devices deemed to pose the lowest risk are categorized as either Class I or II, which requires the manufacturer to submit to the FDA a 510(k) pre-market notification submission requesting clearance of the device for commercial distribution in the United States. Some low risk devices are exempted from this requirement. Devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risk, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting or implantable devices, or devices deemed not substantially equivalent to a previously 510(k) cleared device are categorized as Class III. These devices require submission and approval of a premarket approval, or PMA, application.

510(k) Clearance Process

To obtain 510(k) clearance, we must submit a pre-market notification to the FDA demonstrating that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a previously-cleared 510(k) device, a device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 for which the FDA has not yet called for the submission of pre-market approval applications, or is a device that has been reclassified from Class III to either Class II or I. In rare cases, Class III devices may be cleared through the 510(k) process. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance process usually takes from three to 12 months from the date the application is submitted and filed with the FDA, but may take significantly longer and clearance is never assured. Although many 510(k) pre-market notifications are cleared without clinical data, in some cases, the FDA requires significant clinical data to support substantial equivalence. In reviewing a pre-market notification submission, the FDA may request additional information, including clinical data, which may significantly prolong the review process.  Based on non-binding communications from the FDA, we expect our T2Bacteria Panel to be eligible for a 510(k) submission.

After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any subsequent modification of the device that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, will require a new 510(k) clearance or could require pre-market approval. The FDA requires each manufacturer to make this determination initially, but the FDA may review any such decision and may disagree with a manufacturer’s determination. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s determination, the FDA may require the manufacturer to cease marketing and/or recall

the modified device until 510(k) clearance or approval of a PMA is obtained. Under these circumstances, the FDA may also subject a manufacturer to significant regulatory fines or other penalties. In addition, the FDA is currently evaluating the 510(k) process and may make substantial changes to industry requirements, including which devices are eligible for 510(k) clearance, the ability to rescind previously granted 510(k)s and additional requirements that may significantly impact the process.

Pre-market Approval Process

A PMA application must be submitted if the medical device is in Class III (although the FDA has the discretion to continue to allow certain pre- amendment Class III devices to use the 510(k) process) or cannot be cleared through the 510(k) process. A PMA application must be supported by, among other things, extensive technical, preclinical, and clinical trials, as well as manufacturing and labeling data to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device.

After a PMA application is submitted and filed, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the submitted information, which typically takes between one and three years, but may take significantly longer. During this review period, the FDA may request additional information or clarification of information already provided. Also during the review period, an advisory panel of experts from outside the FDA will usually be convened to review and evaluate the application and provide recommendations to the FDA as to the approvability of the device. In addition, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility to ensure compliance with Quality System Regulation, or QSR, which imposes elaborate design development, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures in the design and manufacturing process. The FDA may approve a PMA application with post-approval conditions intended to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution and collection of long-term follow-up data from patients in the clinical study that supported approval. Failure to comply with the conditions of approval can result in materially adverse enforcement action, including the loss or withdrawal of the approval. New PMA applications or supplements are required for significant modifications to the manufacturing process, labeling of the product and design of a device that is approved through the PMA process. PMA supplements often require submission of the same type of information as an original PMA application, except that the supplement is limited to information needed to support any changes from the device covered by the original PMA application, and may not require as extensive clinical data or the convening of an advisory panel.

De novo Classification Process

Medical device types that the FDA has not previously classified as Class I, II, or III are automatically classified into Class III regardless of the level of risk they pose. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established a new route to market for low to moderate risk medical devices that are automatically placed into Class III due to the absence of a predicate device, called the “Request for Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation,” or the de novo classification procedure. This procedure allows a manufacturer whose novel device is automatically classified into Class III to request down-classification of its medical device into Class I or Class II on the basis that the device presents low or moderate risk, rather than requiring the submission and approval of a PMA application. Prior to the enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, in July 2012, a medical device could only be eligible for de novo classification if the manufacturer first submitted a 510(k) premarket notification and received a determination from the FDA that the device was not substantially equivalent. FDASIA streamlined the de novo classification pathway by permitting manufacturers to request de novo classification directly without first submitting a 510(k) premarket notification to the FDA and receiving a not substantially equivalent determination. Under FDASIA, FDA is required to classify the device within 120 days following receipt of the de novo application. If the manufacturer seeks reclassification into Class II, the manufacturer must include a draft proposal for special controls that are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the medical device. In addition, the FDA may reject the reclassification petition if it identifies a legally marketed predicate device that would be appropriate for a 510(k) or determines that the device is not low to moderate risk or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls cannot be developed. We utilized the de novo classification process to obtain marketing clearance for our T2Dx and T2Candida devices, which were given a Class II designation.  We received marketing clearance for these devices from the FDA on September 22, 2014.

Clinical Trials

A clinical trial is typically required to support a PMA application and is sometimes required for a 510(k) pre-market notification. Clinical trials generally require submission of an application for an Investigational Device Exemption, or IDE, to the FDA. The IDE application must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory testing results, showing that it is safe to test the device in humans and that the investigational protocol is scientifically sound. The IDE application must be approved in advance by the FDA for a specified number of patients, unless the product is deemed a non-significant risk device and eligible for more abbreviated IDE requirements. Clinical trials for a significant risk device may begin once the IDE application is approved by the FDA as well as the appropriate institutional review boards, or IRBs, at the clinical trial sites, and the informed consent of the patients participating in the clinical trial is obtained. After a trial begins, the FDA may place it on hold or terminate it if, among other reasons, it concludes that the clinical subjects are exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Any trials we conduct must be conducted in accordance with FDA regulations as well as other federal regulations and state laws concerning human subject protection and privacy. Moreover, the results of a clinical trial may not be sufficient to obtain clearance or approval of the product.

Pervasive and Continuing U.S. Food and Drug Administration Regulation

After a medical device is placed on the market, numerous FDA regulatory requirements apply, including, but not limited to the following:

 the Quality System Regulation, or QSR, which requires manufacturers to follow design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures during the manufacturing process;

 establishment registration, which requires establishments involved in the production and distribution of medical devices, intended for commercial distribution in the United States, to register with the FDA;

 medical device listing, which requires manufacturers to list the devices they have in commercial distribution with the FDA;

 labeling regulations, which prohibit “misbranded” devices from entering the market, as well as prohibit the promotion of products for unapproved or “off-label” uses and impose other restrictions on labeling; and

 post-market surveillance including Medical Device Reporting, which requires manufacturers report to the FDA if their device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, or malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if it were to recur.

The FDA enforces these requirements by inspection and market surveillance. Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements may result in enforcement action by the FDA, which may include one or more of the following sanctions:

 untitled letters or warning letters;

 fines, injunctions and civil penalties;

 mandatory recall or seizure of our products;

 administrative detention or banning of our products;

 operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of production;

 refusing our request for 510(k) clearance or pre-market approval of new product versions;

 revocation of 510(k) clearance or pre-market approvals previously granted; and

 criminal prosecution and penalties.

International Regulation

Sales of medical devices outside the United States are subject to foreign government regulations, which vary substantially from country to country. In order to market our products in other countries, we must obtain regulatory approvals and comply with extensive safety and quality regulations in other countries. 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 significantly.

In the European Economic Area, or EEA, which comprises the 28 Member States of the EU plus Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland, in vitro medical devices are required to conform with the essential requirements of the EU Directive on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (Directive 98/79/EC, as amended). To demonstrate compliance with the essential requirements, the manufacturer must undergo a conformity assessment procedure. The conformity assessment varies according to the type of medical device and its classification. For low-risk devices, the conformity assessment can be carried out internally, but for higher risk devices (self-test devices and those included in List A and B of Annex II of Directive 98/79/EC) it requires the intervention of an accredited EEA Notified Body. If successful, the conformity assessment concludes with the drawing up by the manufacturer of an EC Declaration of Conformity entitling the manufacturer to affix the CE mark to its products and to sell them throughout the EEA. We concluded an assessment of the conformity of the T2Dx and T2Candida with the EU in vitro diagnostic medical devices directive in late 2014, based upon an EC Declaration of Conformity dated July 7, 2014 and updated on September 9, 2015 and May 26, 2016, allowing us to affix the CE mark to these products.

Other Healthcare Laws

Our current and future business activities are subject to healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign governments in which we conduct our business. These laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security and physician sunshine laws and regulations.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person from knowingly and willfully offering, soliciting, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce either the referral of an individual, for an item or service or the purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any good, facility, item or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under federal healthcare programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. 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 Anti-Kickback Statute has been violated.

Further, the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the Affordable Care Act, among other things, amends the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and certain criminal statute governing healthcare fraud statutes to a stricter standard. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of these statutes or specific intent to violate them. In addition, the Affordable Care Act codifies case law that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act. The majority of states also have anti-kickback laws which establish similar prohibitions and in some cases may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers.

Additionally, the civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, knowingly presenting or causing the presentation of a false or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the U.S. government. In addition to actions initiated by the government itself, the statute authorizes actions to be brought on behalf of the federal government by a private party having knowledge of the alleged fraud. Because the complaint is initially filed under seal, the action may be pending for some time before the defendant is even aware of the action. If the government intervenes and is

ultimately successful in obtaining redress in the matter, or if the plaintiff succeeds in obtaining redresss without the government’s involvement, then the plaintiff will receive a percentage of the recovery. The federal government is using the False Claims Act, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in its investigation and prosecution of life sciences companies throughout the country, for example, in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other sales and marketing practices. The government has obtained multi-million and multi-billion dollar settlements under the False Claims Act in addition to individual criminal convictions under applicable criminal statutes. Given the significant size of actual and potential settlements, it is expected that the government will continue to devote substantial resources to investigating healthcare providers’ and manufacturers’ compliance with applicable fraud and abuse laws.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the Anti-Kickback Statute, the Affordable Care Act amended the intent standard for certain healthcare fraud under HIPAA such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

Also, as stated above, many states have similar fraud and abuse laws that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor.

Moreover, Section 6002 of the Affordable Care Act included new requirements for device manufacturers, among others, to report certain payments or “transfers of value” provided to physicians and teaching hospitals, and to report ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members during the preceding calendar year. Section 6002 of the Affordable Care Act includes in its reporting requirements a broad range of transfers of value including, but not limited to, consulting fees, speaker honoraria, charitable contributions, research payments and grants. We collect data annually and report it to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, no later than the last day of March each year. Failure to report could subject companies to significant financial penalties. Tracking and reporting the required payments and transfers of value may result in considerable expense and additional resources. Several states currently have similar laws and more states may enact similar legislation, some of which may be broader in scope. For example, certain states require the implementation of compliance programs, compliance with industry ethics codes, implementation of gift bans and spending limits, and/or reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to healthcare professionals.

We also may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January 25, 2013, imposes specified requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH, through its implementing regulations, makes certain of HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to business associates, defined as a person or organization, other than a member of a covered entity’s workforce, that creates, receives, maintains or transmits protected health information for or on behalf of a covered entity for a function or activity regulated by HIPAA. In addition to HIPAA criminal penalties, HITECH created four new tiers of civil and monetary penalties and gave state attorney generals new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

The shifting commercial compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with different compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions increase the possibility that a healthcare company may violate one or more of the requirements. If our future operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to

penalties, including, without limitation, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Maintaining and growing sales of our products and product candidates depends in large part on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors, including government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, private insurance plans and managed care programs. These third-party payors are increasingly limiting coverage and reducing reimbursement for medical products and services. In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls and restrictions on coverage and reimbursement. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our products and/or product candidates or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our products and/or product candidates could reduce physician utilization of our products, if approved, and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

Hospitals, clinical laboratories and other healthcare provider customers that may purchase our products and/or product candidates generally bill various third-party payors to cover all or a portion of the costs and fees associated with diagnostic tests, including the cost of the purchase of our products and/or product candidates. We currently expect that the majority of our diagnostic tests will be performed in a hospital inpatient setting, where governmental payors, such as Medicare, generally reimburse hospitals with a single bundled payment that is based on the patients’ diagnosis under a classification system known as the Medicare severity diagnosis-related groups, or MS-DRGs, classification for all items and services provided to the patient during a single hospitalization, regardless of whether our diagnostic tests are performed during such hospitalization. To the extent that our diagnostic tests will be performed in an outpatient setting, our products and/or product candidates may be eligible for separate payment using existing Current Procedural Terminology, or CPT, codes. Third-party payors may deny coverage, however, if they determine that our products are not cost-effective as determined by the payor, or are deemed by the third-party payor to be experimental or medically unnecessary. We are unable to predict at this time whether our products and/or product candidates, if approved, will be covered by third-party payors. Nor can we predict at this time the adequacy of payments, whether made separately in an outpatient setting or with a bundled payment amount in an inpatient setting. Our customers’ access to adequate coverage and reimbursement for our products and/or product candidates by government and private insurance plans is central to the acceptance of our products. We may be unable to sell our products on a profitable basis if third-party payors deny coverage or reduce their current levels of payment, or if our costs of production increase faster than increases in reimbursement levels.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system seeking, among other things, to reduce healthcare costs that could affect our future results of operations as we begin to directly commercialize our products.

By way of example, in the United States, the Affordable Care Act which was signed into law in March 2010, substantially changed the way healthcare is delivered and financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among other things, the Affordable Care Act:

 established a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee and identify priorities in comparative clinical effectiveness research in an effort to coordinate and develop such research;

 implemented payment system reforms including a national pilot program on payment bundling to encourage hospitals, physicians and other providers to improve the coordination, quality and efficiency of certain healthcare services through bundled payment models; and

 created an independent payment advisory board that will submit recommendations to reduce Medicare spending if projected Medicare spending exceeds a specified growth rate.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the President signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals.

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

Research and Development

We have committed, and expect to commit, significant resources to developing new technologies and products, improving product performance and reliability and reducing costs. We have assembled an experienced research and development team with the scientific, engineering, software and process talent that we believe is required to successfully grow our business. We are currently focused on several product candidates and enhancements utilizing our T2MR platform. We incurred research and development expenses of $24.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, $25.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 and $19.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. Research and development expenses represented 44% of our total costs and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016, 55% of our total costs and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2015 and 64% of our total costs and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2014. Major components of the research and development expenses were salaries and benefits, research-related facility and overhead costs, laboratory supplies, equipment and contract services.

We continuously seek to improve T2MR, including improvements in its technology and accessibility. As we make improvements, we anticipate we will make available new and improved generations of our diagnostic instruments and panels. Our technology developmental efforts are focused on applying T2MR to additional potential applications in the in vitro diagnostics area. We are continuing our development of T2Bacteria and have initiated the collection of samples to support clinical trials for T2Bacteria through 2017. We believe that technical advantage is important to sustain a competitive advantage, and therefore our research and development efforts are focused on the continued enhancement of our T2MR platform. We are dedicated to ongoing innovation to T2MR and expanding our pipeline of product candidates. Our goal is for T2MR to become a standard of care by providing technology that offers a rapid, sensitive and simple diagnostic alternative to existing methodologies for identifying both sepsis and impaired hemostasis, with a long-term objective of targeting the broader in vitro diagnostics market.

Employees

As of December 31, 2016, we had 178 full-time employees, of which 70 work in operations (which includes manufacturing, service and support, clinical and regulatory support, quality control and quality assurance), 52 in research and development, 26 in general and administrative and 30 in sales and marketing.

Facilities

Our corporate headquarters is located in Lexington, Massachusetts, where we currently lease approximately 32,400 square feet of office space, 22,800 square feet of laboratory space and 4,600 square feet of manufacturing space in various facilities. Our base rent, for leases at our corporate headquarters, is $1.9 million annually. We also lease approximately 7,600 square feet in Wilmington, Massachusetts for our manufacturing facility, under a lease that expires in 2017 for $68,000 of base rent annually.

Corporate and Available Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 2006. Our principal corporate offices are located at 101 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421.

We make available, free of charge, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file

such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. We also make these documents and certain public financial information available on our website, which is www.t2biosystems.com. Our SEC reports and other financial information can be accessed through the investor relations section of our website. Some of the information found on our website is not part of this or any other report we file with or furnish to the SEC.

 attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel in various areas of our business; and

 implement and maintain systems and processes that are compliant with applicable regulatory standards.

Due to our limited operating history, we may not have the institutional knowledge or experience to be able to effectively address these and other risks that may face our business. In addition, we may not be able to develop insights into trends that could emerge and negatively affect our business and may fail to respond effectively to those trends. As a result of these or other risks, we may not be able to execute key components of our business strategy, and our business, financial condition and operating results may suffer.

Until we achieve scale in our business model our revenue will be primarily generated from research revenue and the T2Dx Instrument and the T2Candida Panel, and any factors that negatively impact sales of these products may adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

We began to offer our initial sepsis products for sale in the fourth quarter of 2014 and expect that we will be dependent upon the sales of these products for the majority of our revenue until we receive regulatory clearance or approval for our other product candidates currently in development.  Because we currently rely on a limited number of products to generate a significant portion of our revenue, any factors that negatively impact sales of these products, or result in sales of these products increasing at a lower rate than expected, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results and negatively impact our ability to successfully launch future product candidates currently under development.

If T2MR, our T2Dx and T2Candida products or any of our other product candidates fail to achieve and sustain sufficient market acceptance, we will not generate expected revenue and our growth prospects, operating results and financial condition may be harmed.

The commercialization of T2MR, our T2Dx and T2Candida products and the future commercialization of our other product candidates in the United States and other jurisdictions in which we intend to pursue marketing clearance are key elements of our strategy. If we are not successful in conveying to hospitals that our current products and future product candidates provide equivalent or superior diagnostic information in a shorter period of time compared to existing technologies, or that these products and future product candidates improve patient outcomes or decrease healthcare costs, we may experience reluctance, or refusal, on the part of hospitals to order, and third-party payors to pay for performing a test in which our product is utilized. For example, the T2Candida Panel is labeled for the presumptive diagnosis of candidemia. The results of the web-based survey we conducted of decision makers involved with laboratory purchasing may not be indicative of the actual adoption of T2Candida. In addition, our expectations regarding cost savings from using our products may not be accurate.

These hurdles may make it difficult to demonstrate to physicians, hospitals and other healthcare providers that our current diagnostic products and future product candidates are appropriate options for diagnosing sepsis and impaired hemostasis, may be superior to available tests and may be more cost-effective than alternative technologies. Furthermore, we may encounter significant difficulty in gaining inclusion in sepsis and hemostasis treatment guidelines, gaining broad market acceptance by healthcare providers, third-party payors and patients using T2MR and our related products and product candidates. Furthermore, healthcare providers may have difficulty in maintaining adequate reimbursement for sepsis treatment, which may negatively impact adoption of our products.

If we fail to successfully commercialize our products and product candidates, we may never receive a return on the significant investments in product development, sales and marketing, regulatory, manufacturing and quality assurance we have made and further investments we intend to make, and may fail to generate revenue and gain economies of scale from such investments.

If T2Lyme does not successfully identify Lyme disease in clinical patients, our future revenue could be negatively impacted.

We believe that the T2Lyme test panel will be able to rapidly identify the bacteria that cause Lyme disease directly from patients’ blood with similar limits of detection as our current sepsis test, T2Candida.  If T2Lyme does not successfully identify Lyme disease in clinical patients with adequate clinical sensitivity and specificity, the revenue opportunity for this product candidate could be limited or not realized at all.

We have limited experience in marketing and selling our products, and if we are unable to expand, manage and maintain our direct sales and marketing organizations, or otherwise commercialize our products, our business may be adversely affected.

Because we received FDA clearance to sell our initial sepsis products in the third quarter of 2014, we have limited experience marketing and selling our products. As of December 31, 2016, our direct sales organization, including marketing, consisted of 30 employees.  Our financial condition and operating results are highly dependent upon the sales and marketing efforts of our sales and marketing employees.  If our sales and marketing efforts fail to adequately promote, market and sell our products, our sales may not increase at levels that are in line with our forecasts.

Our future sales growth will depend in large part on our ability to successfully expand the size and geographic scope of our direct sales force in the United States.  Accordingly, our future success will depend largely on our ability to continue to hire, train, retain and motivate skilled sales and marketing personnel.  Because the competition for their services is high, there is no assurance we will be able to hire and retain additional personnel on commercially reasonable terms.  If we are unable to expand our sales and marketing capabilities, we may not be able to effectively commercialize our products and our business and operating results may be adversely affected.

Outside of the United States, we sell our products through distribution partners and there is no guarantee that we will be successful in attracting or retaining desirable distribution partners for these markets or that we will be able to enter into such arrangements on favorable terms. Distributors may not commit the necessary resources to market and sell our products effectively or may choose to favor marketing the products of our competitors. If distributors do not perform adequately, or if we are unable to enter into effective arrangements with distributors in particular geographic areas, we may not realize international sales and growth.

Our sales cycle is lengthy and variable and we have no sales history, which makes it difficult for us to forecast revenue and other operating results.

Our sales process involves numerous interactions with multiple individuals within an organization and often includes in-depth analysis by potential customers of our products, performance of proof-of-principle studies, preparation of extensive documentation and a lengthy review process. As a result of these factors and the budget cycles of our potential customers, the time from initial contact with a potential customer to our receipt of a purchase order from such potential customer, will vary significantly and could be up to 12 months or longer. Given the length and uncertainty of our anticipated sales cycle, we likely will experience fluctuations in our product sales on a period-to-period basis. Expected revenue streams are highly dependent on hospitals’ adoption of our consumables-based business model, and we cannot assure you that our potential hospital clients will follow a consistent purchasing pattern. Moreover, it is difficult for us to forecast our revenue as it is dependent upon our ability to convince the medical community of the clinical utility and economic benefits of our products and their potential advantages over existing diagnostic tests, the willingness of hospitals to utilize our products and the cost of our products to hospitals.  In addition, we only recently started selling the T2Dx and T2Candida products and have a limited sales history to rely on when forecasting revenue and other operating results.

We may not be able to gain the ongoing support of leading hospitals and key thought leaders, or to continue the publication of the results of new clinical trials in peer-reviewed journals, which may make it difficult to establish T2MR as a standard of care and may limit our revenue growth and ability to achieve profitability.

Our strategy includes developing relationships with leading hospitals and key thought leaders in the industry. If these hospitals and key thought leaders determine that T2MR and related products are not clinically effective or that alternative technologies are more effective, or if we encounter difficulty promoting adoption or establishing T2MR as a standard of care, our revenue growth and our ability to achieve profitability could be significantly limited.

We believe that the successful completion of our pivotal T2Bacteria clinical trial, publication of scientific and medical results in peer-reviewed journals and presentation of data at leading conferences are critical to the broad adoption of T2MR. Publication in leading medical journals is subject to a peer-review process, and peer reviewers may not consider the results of studies involving T2MR sufficiently novel or worthy of publication.

If we are unable to successfully manage our growth, our business will be harmed.

During the past few years, we have significantly expanded our operations. We expect this expansion to continue to an even greater degree as we continue to commercialize our initial sepsis products, continue to build a targeted sales force and as we seek marketing clearance from the FDA and international regulatory clearance of our future product candidates. Our growth has placed, and will continue to place, a significant strain on our management, operating and financial systems and our sales, marketing and administrative resources. As a result of our growth, operating costs may escalate even faster than planned, and some of our internal systems and processes, including those relating to manufacturing our products, may need to be enhanced, updated or replaced. Additionally, our anticipated growth will increase demands placed on our suppliers, resulting in an increased need for us to manage our suppliers and monitor for quality assurance.  If we cannot effectively manage our expanding operations, manufacturing capacity and costs, including scaling to meet increased demand and properly managing suppliers, we may not be able to continue to grow or we may grow at a slower pace than expected and our business could be adversely affected.

Our future capital needs are uncertain, and we may need to raise additional funds in the future.

We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to meet our anticipated cash requirements for at least the next 12 months from the date of issuance of these consolidated financial statements. However, we may need to raise substantial additional capital to:

 expand our product offerings;

 expand our sales and marketing infrastructure;



 increase our manufacturing capacity;

 fund our operations; and

 continue our research and development activities.

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

 our ability to obtain marketing clearance from the FDA and international regulatory clearance to market our future product candidates;

 market acceptance of our products and product candidates;

 the cost and timing of establishing sales, marketing and distribution capabilities;

 the cost of our research and development activities;

 the ability of healthcare providers to obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors for procedures using our products and product candidates;

 the cost and timing of marketing clearance or regulatory clearances;

 the cost of goods associated with our products and product candidates;

 the effect of competing technological and market developments; and

 the extent to which we acquire or invest in businesses, products and technologies, including entering into licensing or collaboration arrangements for products or technology.

We cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain additional funds on acceptable terms, or at all. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity or equity-linked securities, our stockholders may experience dilution. Debt financing, if available, may involve covenants restricting our operations or our ability to incur additional debt. Any debt or

additional equity financing that we raise may contain terms that are not favorable to us or our stockholders. If we raise additional funds through collaboration and licensing arrangements with third parties, it may be necessary to relinquish some rights to our technologies or our products, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we are unable to raise adequate funds, we may need to liquidate some or all of our assets or delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate some or all of our development programs.

If we do not have, or are not able to obtain, sufficient funds, we may be required to delay development or commercialization of our product candidates or license to third parties the rights to commercialize our product candidates or technologies that we would otherwise seek to commercialize ourselves. We also may need to reduce marketing, customer support or other resources devoted to our products or cease operations. Any of these factors could harm our operating results.

Our future success is dependent upon our ability to create and expand a customer base for our products in large hospitals.

We market our initial sepsis products to the approximately 450 leading hospitals in the United States in which the top one-third of patients at highest risk of suffering from sepsis are concentrated.  We are also targeting the top-tier hospitals in each of the European markets where we currently sell our products. We may not be successful in promoting adoption of our technologies in those targeted hospitals, which may make it difficult for us to achieve broader market acceptance of these products.

We utilize third-party, single-source suppliers for some components and materials used in our products and product candidates, and the loss of any of these suppliers could have an adverse impact on our business.

We rely on single-source suppliers for some components and materials used in our products and product candidates. Our ability to supply our products commercially and to develop any future products depends, in part, on our ability to obtain these components in accordance with regulatory requirements and in sufficient quantities for commercialization and clinical testing. We have entered into supply agreements with most of our suppliers to help ensure component availability and flexible purchasing terms with respect to the purchase of such components.  While our suppliers have generally met our demand for their products on a timely basis in the past, we cannot assure that they will in the future be able to meet our demand for their products, either because we do not have long-term agreements with those suppliers, our relative importance as a customer to those suppliers, or their ability to produce the components used in our products.

While we believe replacement suppliers exist for all components and materials we obtain from single sources, establishing additional or replacement suppliers for any of these components or materials, if required, may not be accomplished quickly. Even if we are able to find a replacement supplier, the replacement supplier would need to be qualified and may require additional regulatory authority approval, which could result in further delay. While we seek to maintain adequate inventory of the single-source components and materials used in our products in the event of disruption, those inventories may not be sufficient.

If our third-party suppliers fail to deliver the required commercial quantities of materials on a timely basis and at commercially reasonable prices, and we are unable to find one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost in substantially equivalent volumes and quality on a timely basis, the continued commercialization of our products, the supply of our products to customers and the development of any future products would be delayed, limited or prevented, which could have an adverse impact on our business.

If we are unable to recruit, train and retain key personnel, we may not achieve our goals.

Our future success depends on our ability to recruit, train, retain and motivate key personnel, including our senior management, research and development, science and engineering, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel. In particular, we are highly dependent on the management and business expertise of John McDonough, our President and Chief Executive Officer. We do not maintain fixed-term employment contracts or key man life insurance with any of our employees. Competition for qualified personnel is intense, particularly in the Boston, Massachusetts area. Our growth depends, in particular, on attracting, retaining and motivating highly trained sales personnel with the necessary scientific background and ability to understand our systems at a technical level. In addition, we may need additional employees at our manufacturing facilities to meet demand for our products as we scale up our sales and

marketing operations. Because of the complex and technical nature of our products and the dynamic market in which we compete, any failure to attract, train, retain and motivate qualified personnel could materially harm our operating results and growth prospects.

If our diagnostics do not perform as expected, our operating results, reputation and business will suffer.

Our future success will depend on the market’s confidence that our technologies can provide reliable, high-quality diagnostic results. We believe that our customers are likely to be particularly sensitive to any defects or errors in our products. If our technology fails to detect the presence of Candida or another bacterial pathogen and a patient subsequently suffers from sepsis, or if our technology fails to detect impaired hemostasis and a patient faces adverse consequences from the misdiagnosis, then we could face claims against us or our reputation could suffer as a result of such failures. The failure of our current products or planned diagnostic product candidates to perform reliably or as expected could significantly impair our reputation and the public image of our products, and we may be subject to legal claims arising from any defects or errors.

The diagnostics market is highly competitive. If we fail to compete effectively, our business and operating results will suffer.

While the technology of our products and product candidates is different than other products currently available, we compete with commercial diagnostics companies for the limited resources of our customers. In this regard, our principal competition is from a number of companies that offer platforms and applications in our target sepsis and hemostasis markets, most of which are more established commercial organizations with considerable name recognition and significant financial resources.

We compete with companies that currently provide traditional blood culture-based diagnostics, including Becton Dickinson & Co. and bioMerieux, Inc. In addition, companies offering post-culture species identification using both molecular and non-molecular methods include bioMerieux, Inc. (and its affiliate, BioFire Diagnostics, Inc.), Bruker Corporation, Accelerate Diagnostics, Luminex, Genmark, Cepheid and Beckman Coulter, a Danaher company. 

Most of our expected competitors are either publicly traded, or are divisions of publicly traded companies, and have a number of competitive advantages over us, including:

 greater name and brand recognition, financial and human resources;

 established and broader product lines;

 larger sales forces and more established distribution networks;

 substantial intellectual property portfolios;

 larger and more established customer bases and relationships; and

 better established, larger scale and lower-cost manufacturing capabilities.

We believe that the principal competitive factors in all of our target markets include:

 impact of products on the health of the patient;

 impact of the use of products on the cost of treating patients in the hospital;

 cost of capital equipment;

 reputation among physicians, hospitals and other healthcare providers;

 innovation in product offerings;

 flexibility and ease-of-use;

 speed, accuracy and reproducibility of results; and

 ability to implement a consumables-based model for panels.

We believe that additional competitive factors specific to the diagnostics market include:

 breadth of clinical decisions that can be influenced by information generated by diagnostic tests;

 volume, quality and strength of clinical and analytical validation data;

 availability of adequate reimbursement for testing services and procedures for healthcare providers using our products; and

 economic benefit accrued to hospitals based on the total cost to treat a patient for a health condition.

We cannot assure you that we will effectively compete or that we will be successful in the face of increasing competition from new products and technologies introduced by our existing competitors or new companies entering our markets. In addition, we cannot assure you that our future competitors do not have or will not develop products or technologies that enable them to produce competitive products with greater capabilities or at lower costs than our products and product candidates. Any failure to compete effectively could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

Undetected errors or defects in our products or product candidates could harm our reputation, decrease market acceptance of our products or expose us to product liability claims.

Our products or product candidates may contain undetected errors or defects. Disruptions or other performance problems with our products or product candidates may damage our customers’ businesses and could harm our reputation. If that occurs, we may incur significant costs, the attention of our key personnel could be diverted or other significant customer relations problems may arise. We may also be subject to warranty and liability claims for damages related to errors or defects in our products or product candidates. A material liability claim or other occurrence that harms our reputation or decreases market acceptance of our products or product candidates could harm our business and operating results.

The sale and use of products or product candidates or services based on our technologies, or activities related to our research and clinical studies, could lead to the filing of product liability claims if someone were to allege that one of our products contained a design or manufacturing defect. A product liability claim could result in substantial damages and be costly and time consuming to defend, either of which could materially harm our business or financial condition. We cannot assure you that our product liability insurance would adequately protect our assets from the financial impact of defending a product liability claim. Any product liability claim brought against us, with or without merit, could increase our product liability insurance rates or prevent us from securing insurance coverage in the future.

We may not be able to develop new product candidates or enhance the capabilities of our systems to keep pace with our industry’s rapidly changing technology and customer requirements, which could have a material adverse impact on our revenue, results of operations and business.

Our industry is characterized by rapid technological changes, frequent new product introductions and enhancements and evolving industry standards. Our success depends on our ability to develop new product candidates and applications for our technology in new markets that develop as a result of technological and scientific advances, while improving the performance and cost-effectiveness of our existing product candidates. New technologies, techniques or products could emerge that might offer better combinations of price and performance than the products and systems that we plan to sell. Existing markets for our intended diagnostic product candidates are characterized by rapid technological change and innovation. It is critical to our success that we anticipate changes in technology and customer requirements and physician, hospital and healthcare provider practices and successfully introduce new, enhanced and competitive technologies to meet our prospective customers’ needs on a timely and cost-effective basis. At the same time, however, we must carefully manage our introduction of new products. If potential customers believe that such products will offer enhanced features or be sold for a more attractive price, they may delay purchases until such

products are available. We may also have excess or obsolete inventory of older products as we transition to new products, and we have no experience in managing product transitions. If we do not successfully innovate and introduce new technology into our anticipated product lines or manage the transitions of our technology to new product offerings, our revenue, results of operations and business will be adversely impacted.

Competitors may be able to respond more quickly and effectively than we can to new or changing opportunities, technologies, standards or customer requirements. We anticipate that we will face strong competition in the future as expected competitors develop new or improved products and as new companies enter the market with new technologies and products.

We are developing additional product candidates that we intend to be used with the T2Dx, including T2Bacteria for the detection of certain strains of sepsis-causing bacteria and T2Lyme for the detection of certain strains of Lyme disease-causing bacteria. We are also developing the T2Plex, which we previously referred to as the T2Stat, to be used with our developmental T2HemoStat panel, which is designed to detect impaired hemostasis. We may have problems applying our technologies to these other areas and our new applications may not be as effective in detection as our initial applications. Any failure or delay in creating a customer base or launching new applications may compromise our ability to achieve our growth objectives.

Manufacturing risks may adversely affect our ability to manufacture products and could reduce our gross margins and negatively affect our operating results.

Our business strategy depends on our ability to manufacture and assemble our current and proposed products in sufficient quantities and on a timely basis so as to meet consumer demand, while adhering to product quality standards, complying with regulatory requirements and managing manufacturing costs. We are subject to numerous risks relating to our manufacturing capabilities, including:

 quality or reliability defects in product components that we source from third party suppliers;

 our inability to secure product components in a timely manner, in sufficient quantities or on commercially reasonable terms;

 our failure to increase production of products to meet demand;

 the challenge of implementing and maintaining acceptable quality systems while experiencing rapid growth;

 our inability to modify production lines to enable us to efficiently produce future products or implement changes in current products in response to regulatory requirements; and

 difficulty identifying and qualifying alternative suppliers for components in a timely manner.

As demand for our products increases, we will need to invest additional resources to purchase components, hire and train employees, and enhance our manufacturing processes and quality systems. If we fail to increase our production capacity efficiently while also maintaining quality requirements, our sales may not increase in line with our forecasts and our operating margins could fluctuate or decline. In addition, although we expect some of our product candidates to share product features and components with the T2Dx and the T2Candida panel, manufacturing of these products may require the modification of our production lines, the hiring of specialized employees, the identification of new suppliers for specific components, or the development of new manufacturing technologies. It may not be possible for us to manufacture these products at a cost or in quantities sufficient to make these products commercially viable.  Any future interruptions we experience in the manufacturing or shipping of our products could delay our ability to recognize revenues in a particular quarter and could also adversely affect our relationships with our customers.

We currently develop, manufacture and test our products and product candidates and some of their components in two facilities. If these or any future facility or our equipment were damaged or destroyed, or if we experience a significant disruption in our operations for any reason, our ability to continue to operate our business could be materially harmed.

We currently develop our diagnostic products exclusively in a facility in Lexington, Massachusetts and manufacture and test some components of our products and product candidates in, both, Wilmington and Lexington, Massachusetts. If these or any future facility were to be damaged, destroyed or otherwise unable to operate, whether due to fire, floods, hurricanes, storms, tornadoes, other natural disasters, employee malfeasance, terrorist acts, power outages,

or otherwise, or if our business is disrupted for any other reason, we may not be able to develop or test our products and product candidates as promptly as our potential customers expect, or possibly not at all.

The manufacture of components of our products and product candidates at our Wilmington facility involves complex processes, sophisticated equipment and strict adherence to specifications and quality systems procedures. Any unforeseen manufacturing problems, such as contamination of our facility, equipment malfunction, or failure to strictly follow procedures or meet specifications, could result in delays or shortfalls in production of our products. Identifying and resolving the cause of any manufacturing issues could require substantial time and resources. If we are unable to keep up with future demand for our products by successfully manufacturing and shipping our products in a timely manner, our revenue growth could be impaired and market acceptance of our product candidates could be adversely affected.

We maintain insurance coverage against damage to our property and equipment, subject to deductibles and other limitations that we believe is adequate. If we have underestimated our insurance needs with respect to an interruption, or if an interruption is not subject to coverage under our insurance policies, we may not be able to cover our losses.

We may be adversely affected by fluctuations in demand for, and prices of, rare earth materials.

T2MR relies, in part, on rare earth materials and products. For example, the T2Dx utilizes magnets which are extracted from the earth. Although there are currently multiple suppliers for these rare earth materials, changes in demand for, and the market price of, these magnets could significantly affect our ability to manufacture our T2MR-based instruments and, consequently, our profitability. Rare earth minerals and product prices may fluctuate and are affected by numerous factors beyond our control such as interest rates, exchange rates, inflation or deflation, global and regional supply and demand for rare earth minerals and products, and the political and economic conditions of countries that produce rare earth minerals and products.

Provisions of our debt instruments may restrict our ability to pursue our business strategies.

Our credit facilities require us, and any debt instruments we may enter into in the future may require us, to comply with various covenants that limit our ability to, among other things:

 convey, lease, sell, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of assets;

 change the nature or location of our business;

 complete mergers or acquisitions;

 incur indebtedness;

 encumber assets;

 pay dividends or make other distributions to holders of our capital stock (other than dividends paid solely in common stock);

 make specified investments;

 change certain key management personnel; and

 engage in material transactions with our affiliates.

These restrictions could inhibit our ability to pursue our business strategies. If we default, which includes a material adverse change, under our credit facilities, and such event of default was not cured or waived, the lenders could terminate commitments to lend and cause all amounts outstanding with respect to the debt to be due and payable immediately, which in turn could result in cross defaults under other debt instruments. Our assets and cash flow may not be sufficient to fully repay borrowings under all of our outstanding debt instruments if some or all of these instruments are accelerated upon a default.

We may incur additional indebtedness in the future. The debt instruments governing such indebtedness could contain provisions that are as, or more, restrictive than our existing debt instruments. If we are unable to repay, refinance or restructure our indebtedness when payment is due, the lenders could proceed against the collateral granted to them to secure such indebtedness or force us into bankruptcy or liquidation.

As part of our current business model, we will seek to enter into strategic relationships with third parties to develop and commercialize diagnostic products.

We intend to enter into strategic relationships with third parties for future diagnostic products. However, there is no assurance that we will be successful in doing so. Establishing strategic relationships can be difficult and time-consuming. Discussions may not lead to agreements on favorable terms, if at all. To the extent we agree to work exclusively with a party in a given area, our opportunities to collaborate with others or develop opportunities independently could be limited. Potential collaborators or licensors may elect not to work with us based upon their assessment of our financial, regulatory or intellectual property position. Even if we establish new strategic relationships, they may never result in the successful development or commercialization of future products.

Acquisitions or joint ventures could disrupt our business, cause dilution to our stockholders and otherwise harm our business.

We may acquire other businesses, products or technologies as well as pursue strategic alliances, joint ventures, technology licenses or investments in complementary businesses. We have not made any acquisitions to date, and our ability to do so successfully is unproven. Any of these transactions could be material to our financial condition and operating results and expose us to many risks, including:

 disruption in our relationships with future customers or with current or future distributors or suppliers as a result of such a transaction;

 unanticipated liabilities related to acquired companies;

 difficulties integrating acquired personnel, technologies and operations into our existing business;

 diversion of management time and focus from operating our business to acquisition integration challenges;

 increases in our expenses and reductions in our cash available for operations and other uses;

 possible write-offs or impairment charges relating to acquired businesses; and

 inability to develop a sales force for any additional product candidates.

Foreign acquisitions involve unique risks in addition to those mentioned above, including those related to integration of operations across different cultures and languages, currency risks and the particular economic, political and regulatory risks associated with specific countries.

Also, the anticipated benefit of any acquisition may not materialize. Future acquisitions or dispositions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or amortization expenses or write-offs of goodwill, any of which could harm our financial condition. We cannot predict the number, timing or size of future joint ventures or acquisitions, or the effect that any such transactions might have on our operating results.

If treatment guidelines for sepsis change, or the standard of care evolves, we may need to redesign and seek new marketing clearance from the FDA for our products.

If treatment guidelines for sepsis change, or the standard of care evolves, we may need to redesign and seek new marketing clearance from the FDA for our products. For example, current treatment recommendations for Candida infections, including those published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America , call for identical treatment for two species of Candida, C. albicans and C. tropicalis , and identical treatment for two other species, C. glabrata and

C. krusei . Although our T2Candida test is technically capable of distinguishing among these species, we have designed it based on current treatment guidelines and therefore it does not distinguish between two species if they are subject to the same recommended treatment. Our FDA clearance to market the T2Dx and T2Candida in the United States is also based on current treatment guidelines. If treatment guidelines change so that different treatments become desirable for the two species currently subject to the same recommended treatment, the clinical utility of our T2Candida test could be diminished and we could be required to seek marketing clearance from the FDA for a revised test that would distinguish between the two species.

Our ability to use net operating losses to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.

As of December 31, 2016, we had federal net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, to offset future taxable income of $174.9 million, which are available to offset future taxable income, if any, through 2036. Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its NOLs to offset future taxable income. We may have already experienced one or more ownership changes. Depending on the timing of any future utilization of our carryforwards, we may be limited as to the amount that can be utilized each year as a result of such previous ownership changes. In addition, future changes in our stock ownership, as well as other changes that may be outside of our control, could result in additional ownership changes under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code. Our NOLs may also be impaired under similar provisions of state law. We have recorded a full valuation allowance related to our NOLs and other deferred tax assets due to the uncertainty of the ultimate realization of the future benefits of those assets.

We face risks related to handling hazardous materials and other regulations governing environmental safety.

Our operations are subject to complex and stringent environmental, health, safety and other governmental laws and regulations that both public officials and private individuals may seek to enforce. Our activities that are subject to these regulations include, among other things, our use of hazardous materials and the generation, transportation and storage of waste. We may not be in material compliance with these regulations. Existing laws and regulations may also be revised or reinterpreted, or new laws and regulations may become applicable to us, whether retroactively or prospectively, that may have a negative effect on our business and results of operations. It is also impossible to eliminate completely the risk of accidental environmental contamination or injury to individuals. In such an event, we could be liable for any damages that result, which could adversely affect our business.

We generate a portion of our revenue internationally and are subject to various risks relating to our international activities which could adversely affect our operating results.

A portion of our revenue comes from international sources, and we anticipate that we will continue to expand overseas operations. Engaging in international business involves a number of difficulties and risks, including:

 required compliance with existing and changing foreign healthcare and other regulatory requirements and laws, such as those relating to patient privacy or handling of bio-hazardous waste;

 required compliance with anti-bribery laws, such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and U.K. Bribery Act, data privacy requirements, labor laws and anti-competition regulations;

 export or import restrictions;

 various reimbursement and insurance regimes;

 laws and business practices favoring local companies;

 longer payment cycles and difficulties in enforcing agreements and collecting receivables through certain foreign legal systems;

 political and economic instability;

 potentially adverse tax consequences, tariffs, customs charges, bureaucratic requirements and other trade barriers;

 foreign exchange controls;

 difficulties and costs of staffing and managing foreign operations; and

 difficulties protecting or procuring intellectual property rights.

As we expand internationally, our results of operations and cash flows will become increasingly subject to fluctuations due to changes in foreign currency exchange rates. Our expenses are generally denominated in the currencies in which our operations are located, which is in the United States. If the value of the U.S. dollar increases relative to foreign currencies in the future, in the absence of a corresponding change in local currency prices, our future revenue could be adversely affected as we convert future revenue from local currencies to U.S. dollars.

If we dedicate resources to our international operations and are unable to manage these risks effectively, our business, operating results and prospects will suffer.

Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial partners and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial partners and vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless or negligent failures to: comply with the regulations of the FDA and other similar foreign regulatory bodies; provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA and other similar regulatory bodies; comply with manufacturing standards we have established; comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and similar foreign fraudulent misconduct laws; or report financial information or data accurately, or disclose unauthorized activities to us. These laws may impact, among other things, our activities with principal investigators and research subjects, as well as our sales, marketing and education programs. In particular, the promotion, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Such misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical studies, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We currently have a code of conduct applicable to all of our employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and our code of conduct and the other precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses, or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. Any of these actions or investigations could result in substantial costs to us, including legal fees, and divert the attention of management from operating our business.

We depend on our information technology systems, and any failure of these systems could harm our business.

We depend on information technology systems for significant elements of our operations, including the storage of data and retrieval of critical business information. We have installed, and expect to expand, a number of enterprise software systems that affect a broad range of business processes and functional areas, including systems handling human resources, financial controls and reporting, contract management, regulatory compliance and other infrastructure operations. These information technology systems may support a variety of functions, including laboratory operations, test validation, quality control, customer service support, billing and reimbursement, research and development activities and general administrative activities. Our clinical trial data is currently stored on a third party’s servers.

Information technology systems are vulnerable to damage from a variety of sources, including network failures, malicious human acts and natural disasters. Moreover, despite network security and back-up measures, some of our

servers are potentially vulnerable to physical or electronic break-ins, computer viruses and similar disruptive problems. Despite the precautionary measures we have taken to prevent unanticipated problems that could affect our information technology systems, failures or significant downtime of our information technology systems or those used by our third-party service providers could prevent us from conducting our general business operations. Any disruption or loss of information technology systems on which critical aspects of our operations depend could have an adverse effect on our business. Further, we store highly confidential information on our information technology systems, including information related to clinical data, product designs and plans to create new products. If our servers or the servers of the third party on which our clinical data is stored are attacked by a physical or electronic break-in, computer virus or other malicious human action, our confidential information could be stolen or destroyed.

Risks Related to Government Regulation and Diagnostic Product Reimbursement

Approval and clearance by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities for our diagnostic tests takes significant time and requires significant research, development and clinical study expenditures and ultimately may not succeed.

The medical device industry is regulated extensively by governmental authorities, principally the FDA and corresponding state regulatory agencies. The regulations are very complex and are subject to rapid change and varying interpretations. Regulatory restrictions or changes could limit our ability to carry on or expand our operations or result in higher than anticipated costs or lower than anticipated sales. The FDA and other U.S. governmental agencies regulate numerous elements of our business, including:

 product design and development;

 pre-clinical and clinical testing and trials;

 product safety;

 establishment registration and product listing;

 labeling and storage;

 marketing, manufacturing, sales and distribution;

 pre-market clearance or approval;

 servicing and post-market surveillance;

 advertising and promotion; and

 recalls and field safety corrective actions.

Before we begin to label and market our product candidates for use as clinical diagnostics in the United States, we are required to obtain clearance from the FDA under Section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, approval of a de novo reclassification petition for our product, or approval of pre-market approval, or PMA, application from the FDA, unless an exemption from pre-market review applies. 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 and safety and effectiveness, in order to clear the proposed device for marketing. Clinical data is sometimes required to support substantial equivalence. The PMA pathway requires an applicant to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the device based, in part, on extensive data, including, but not limited to, technical, preclinical, clinical trial, manufacturing and labeling data. The PMA process is typically required for devices that are deemed to pose the greatest risk, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting or implantable devices. However, some devices are automatically subject to the PMA pathway regardless of the level of risk they pose because they have not previously been classified into a lower risk class by the FDA. Manufacturers of these devices may request that FDA review such devices in accordance with the de novo classification procedure, which allows a manufacturer whose novel device would otherwise require the submission and approval of a PMA prior to marketing to request down-classification of the device on the basis that the device presents low or moderate risk. If the FDA agrees with the down-classification, the applicant will then receive approval to market the device. This device type can then be used as a predicate device for future 510(k) submissions. The process of obtaining regulatory clearances or approvals, or completing the de novo classification process, to market a medical device can be costly and time consuming, and we may not be able to successfully obtain pre-market reviews on a timely basis, if at all.

We received pre-market clearance for our T2Dx Instrument and T2Candida panel under the de novo application procedure in September 2014. From time to time, we may make modifications to these products that may require a new 510(k).  Based on non-binding communications from the FDA, we expect our T2Bacteria panel to be eligible for a 510(k) submission.

If the FDA requires us to go through a lengthier, more rigorous examination for our future product candidates than we had expected, our product introductions or modifications could be delayed or canceled, which could cause our launch to be delayed or, in the future, our sales to decline. In addition, the FDA may determine that our product candidates require the more costly, lengthy and uncertain PMA process.

The FDA can delay, limit or deny clearance or approval of a device for many reasons, including:

 we may not be able to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction that our product candidates are safe and effective, sensitive and specific diagnostic tests, for their intended users;

 the data from our pre-clinical studies and clinical trials may be insufficient to support clearance or approval, where required; and

 the manufacturing process or facilities we use may not meet applicable requirements.

In addition, the FDA may change its clearance and approval policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions which may prevent or delay approval or clearance of our products under development or impact our ability to modify our currently approved or cleared products on a timely basis. For example, in response to industry and healthcare provider concerns regarding the predictability, consistency and rigor of the 510(k) regulatory pathway, the FDA initiated an evaluation of the program, and in January 2011, announced several proposed actions intended to reform the review process governing the clearance of medical devices. The FDA intends these reform actions to improve the efficiency and transparency of the clearance process, as well as bolster patient safety. In addition, as part of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, Congress reauthorized the Medical Device User Fee Amendments with various FDA performance goal commitments and enacted several “Medical Device Regulatory Improvements” and miscellaneous reforms which are further intended to clarify and improve medical device regulation both pre- and post-approval.

Any delay in, or failure to receive or maintain, clearance or approval for our product candidates could prevent us from generating revenue from these product candidates and adversely affect our business operations and financial results. Additionally, the FDA and other regulatory authorities have broad enforcement powers. Regulatory enforcement or inquiries, or other increased scrutiny on us, could affect the perceived safety and efficacy of our products and product candidates and dissuade our customers from using our products and product candidates.

Obtaining FDA clearance, de novo down classification, or approval for diagnostics can be expensive and uncertain, and generally takes from several months to several years, and generally requires detailed and comprehensive scientific and clinical data. Notwithstanding the expense, these efforts may never result in FDA clearance. Even if we were to obtain regulatory clearance, it may not be for the uses we believe are important or commercially attractive, in which case we would not be permitted to market our product for those uses.

Even if granted, a 510(k) clearance, de novo down classification, or PMA approval for any future product would likely place substantial restrictions on how our device is marketed or sold, and the FDA will continue to place considerable restrictions on our products and operations. For example, the manufacture of medical devices must comply with the FDA’s Quality System Regulation, or QSR. In addition, manufacturers must register their manufacturing facilities, list the products with the FDA, and comply with requirements relating to labeling, marketing, complaint handling, adverse event and medical device reporting, reporting of corrections and removals, and import and export. The FDA monitors compliance with the QSR and these other requirements through periodic inspections. If our facilities or those of our manufacturers or suppliers are found to be in violation of applicable laws and regulations, or if we or our manufacturers or suppliers fail to take satisfactory corrective action in response to an adverse inspection, the regulatory authority could take enforcement action, including any of the following sanctions:

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

 customer notifications or repair, replacement, refunds, detention or seizure of our products;

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

 refusing or delaying requests for 510(k) marketing clearance or PMA approvals of new products or modified products;

 withdrawing 510(k) marketing clearances or PMA approvals that have already been granted;

 refusing to provide Certificates for Foreign Government;

 refusing to grant export approval for our products; or

 pursuing criminal prosecution.

Any of these sanctions could impair our ability to produce our products and product candidates in a cost-effective and timely manner in order to meet our customers’ demands, and could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations and financial condition. We may also be required to bear other costs or take other actions that may have a negative impact on our future sales and our ability to generate profits.

Sales of our diagnostic products and product candidates outside the United States are subject to foreign regulatory requirements governing clinical studies, vigilance reporting, marketing approval, manufacturing, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement. These regulatory requirements vary greatly from country to country. As a result, the time required to obtain approvals outside the United States may differ from that required to obtain FDA clearance and we may not be able to obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis or at all. Clearance by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure clearance or approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or by the FDA. Foreign regulatory authorities could require additional testing. Failure to comply with these regulatory requirements, or to obtain required clearances or approvals, could impair our ability to commercialize our diagnostic products and product candidates outside of the United States.

Modifications to our products, if cleared or approved, may require new 510(k) clearances or pre-market approvals, or may require us to cease marketing or recall the modified products until clearances are obtained.

Any modification to a device authorized for marketing that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, design or manufacture, requires a new 510(k) clearance or, possibly, approval of a PMA. The FDA requires every manufacturer to make this determination in the first instance, but the FDA may review any manufacturer’s decision. The FDA may not agree with our decisions regarding whether new clearances or approvals are necessary. If the FDA disagrees with our determination and requires us to submit new 510(k) notifications or PMAs for modifications to previously cleared products for which we conclude that new clearances or approvals are unnecessary, we may be required to cease marketing or to recall the modified product until we obtain clearance or approval, and we may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties.

Furthermore, the FDA’s ongoing review of the 510(k) program may make it more difficult for us to make modifications to any products for which we obtain clearance, either by imposing more strict requirements on when a manufacturer must submit a new 510(k) for a modification to a previously cleared product, or by applying more onerous review criteria to such submissions. For example, in accordance with FDASIA, the FDA was obligated to prepare a report for Congress on the FDA’s approach for determining when a new 510(k) will be required for modifications or changes to a previously cleared device. The FDA recently issued this report and indicated that manufacturers should continue to adhere to the FDA’s 1997 Guidance on this topic when making a determination as to whether or not a new 510(k) is required for a change or modification to a device. However, the practical impact of the FDA’s continuing scrutiny of the 510(k) program remains unclear.

A recall of our products, either voluntarily or at the direction of the FDA, or the discovery of serious safety issues with our products that leads to corrective actions, could have a significant adverse impact on us.

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 or manufacture of a product or in the event that a product poses an unacceptable risk to health. Manufacturers may, under their own initiative, recall a product if any material deficiency in a device is found. A government-mandated or voluntary recall by us or one of our distributors could occur as a result of an unacceptable risk to health, component failures, manufacturing errors, design or

labeling defects or other deficiencies and issues. Under the FDA’s medical device reporting regulations, we are required to report to the FDA any incident in which our product 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. Repeated product malfunctions may result in a voluntary or involuntary product recall. Recalls of any of our products would divert managerial and financial resources and have an adverse effect on our reputation, results of operations and financial condition, which could impair our ability to produce our products in a cost-effective and timely manner in order to meet our customers’ demands. Depending on the corrective action we take to redress a product’s deficiencies or defects, the FDA may require, or we may decide, that we will need to obtain new approvals or clearances for the device before we may market or distribute the corrected device. Seeking such approvals or clearances may delay our ability to replace the recalled devices in a timely manner. Moreover, if we do not adequately address problems associated with our devices, we may face additional regulatory enforcement action, including FDA warning letters, product seizure, injunctions, administrative penalties, or civil or criminal fines. We may also be required to bear other costs or take other actions that may have a negative impact on our sales as well as face significant adverse publicity or regulatory consequences, which could harm our business, including our ability to market our products in the future.

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, would require the dedication of our time and capital, distract management from operating our business and may harm our reputation and financial results.

We may rely on third parties to conduct future studies of our product candidates that may be required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily.

We may rely on third parties, including medical investigators, to conduct such studies. Our reliance on these third parties for clinical development activities will reduce our control over these activities. These third parties may not complete activities on schedule or conduct studies in accordance with regulatory requirements or our study design. If applicable, our reliance on third parties that we do not control will not relieve us of any applicable requirement to prepare, and ensure compliance with, various procedures required under good clinical practices. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or regulatory obligations or meet expected deadlines, if the third parties need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our studies may be extended, delayed, suspended or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain marketing clearance from the FDA or regulatory clearance for our product candidates.

Our customers are highly dependent on payment from third-party payors, and inadequate coverage and/or inadequate reimbursement for diagnostic tests using our technology or for procedures using our products and product candidates and the commercial success of our diagnostic products and product candidates would be compromised.

Successful commercialization of our diagnostic products and product candidates depends, in large part, on the extent to which the costs of our products and product candidates purchased by our customers are reimbursed, either separately or through bundled payment, by third-party private and governmental payors, including Medicare, Medicaid, managed care organizations and private insurance plans. There is significant uncertainty surrounding third-party coverage and reimbursement for the use of tests that incorporate new technology, such as T2MR.  There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved products, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities.

Hospitals, clinical laboratories and other healthcare provider customers that may purchase our products and product candidates, if approved, generally bill various third-party payors to cover all or a portion of the costs and fees associated with diagnostic tests, including the cost of the purchase of our products and product candidates. We currently expect that the majority of our diagnostic tests will be performed in a hospital inpatient setting, where governmental payors, such as Medicare, generally reimburse hospitals a single bundled payment that is based on the patients’ diagnosis under a classification system known as the Medicare severity diagnosis-related groups, classification for all items and services provided to the patient during a single hospitalization, regardless of whether our diagnostic tests are performed during such hospitalization. To the extent that our diagnostic tests will be performed in an outpatient setting, our products and product candidates may be eligible for separate payment, for example, under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule using existing Current Procedural Terminology codes. Third-party payors may deny coverage, however, if they

determine that the diagnostic tests using our products are not cost-effective compared to the use of alternative testing methods as determined by the payor, or is deemed by the third-party payor to be experimental or medically unnecessary. Even if third-party payors make coverage and reimbursement available, such reimbursement may not be adequate or these payors’ reimbursement policies may have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.  In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained.

Government authorities and other third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs, such as by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for various products.  Our customers’ access to adequate coverage and reimbursement for inpatient procedures using our products and product candidates by government and private insurance plans is central to the acceptance of our products. We cannot predict at this time the adequacy of payments, whether made separately in an outpatient setting or with a bundled payment amount in an inpatient setting. We may be unable to sell our products on a profitable basis if third-party payors deny coverage or reduce their current levels of payment, or if our costs of production increase faster than increases in reimbursement levels.

In many countries outside of the United States, various coverage, pricing and reimbursement approvals are required. We expect that it will take several years to establish broad coverage and reimbursement for testing services based on our products with payors in countries outside of the United States, and our efforts may not be successful.

We may be subject to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and other federal and state healthcare laws applicable to our business activities. If we are unable to comply, or have not complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

Our operations are, and will continue to be, directly or indirectly subject to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, the federal and state anti-kickback statutes, physician payment transparency laws and false claims laws. These laws impact, among other things, our sales and marketing and education programs and require us to implement additional internal systems for tracking certain marketing expenditures and reporting them to government authorities. In addition, we may be subject to patient data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include:

 the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons or entities from knowingly or willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, in return for or to induce either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of, any good, facility, item or services for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs;

 federal false claims laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment from or approval by a governmental payor program that are false or fraudulent;

 the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which established additional federal crimes for, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making materially false statements in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services;

 HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, which governs the conduct of certain electronic healthcare transactions and imposes obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, on certain types of people and entities regarding the security and privacy of protected health information;

 the Physician Payments Sunshine Act under the Affordable Care Act, which requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare,

Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to the CMS information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals, and ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members; and

 state or foreign law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers; state laws that require device companies to comply with the industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; state laws that require manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians, hospitals and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures; and state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. In addition, recent healthcare reforms have strengthened these laws. For example, the Affordable Care Act, among other things, amends the intent requirement of the federal anti-kickback statute. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to commit a violation. The Affordable Care Act also codified case law by amending the False Claims Act, such that violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are now deemed violations of the False Claims Act.

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 administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, the exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and individual imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Healthcare policy changes, including legislation reforming the United States healthcare system, may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The Affordable Care Act, enacted in March 2010, made changes that significantly impacted the pharmaceutical and medical device industries and clinical laboratories. Beginning in 2013, certain medical device manufacturers have to pay a medical device excise tax in an amount equal to 2.3% of the price for which such manufacturer sells its medical devices. The excise tax applies to our T2Dx Instrument and T2Candida Panel, and we expect that it will apply to some or all of our product candidates.  The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, signed into law on December 18, 2015, temporarily suspended the 2.3% medical device excise tax for a two-year period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017.

The Affordable Care Act also mandated a reduction in payments for clinical laboratory services paid under the Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, or CLFS, of 1.75% for the years 2011 through 2015 and a productivity adjustment to the CLFS, further reducing payment rates. Some commercial payors are guided by the CLFS in establishing their reimbursement rates. Clinicians may decide not to order clinical diagnostic tests if third-party payments are inadequate, and we cannot predict whether third-party payors will offer adequate reimbursement for procedures utilizing our products and product candidates to make them commercially attractive. To the extent that the diagnostic tests using our products and product candidates are performed on an outpatient basis, these or any future proposed or mandated reductions in payments under the CLFS may apply to some or all of the clinical laboratory tests that our diagnostics customers may use our technology to deliver to Medicare beneficiaries and may indirectly reduce demand for our diagnostic products and product candidates.

Other significant measures for our industry contained in the Affordable Care Act included coordination and promotion of research on comparative clinical effectiveness of different technologies and procedures; initiatives to revise Medicare payment methodologies, such as bundling of payments across the continuum of care by providers and physicians; and initiatives to promote quality indicators in payment methodologies. The Affordable Care Act also includes significant new fraud and abuse measures, including required disclosures of certain financial arrangements with physician customers, lower thresholds for violations and increasing potential penalties for such violations. In addition, the Affordable Care Act establishes an Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, to reduce the per capita rate of

growth in Medicare spending. The IPAB has broad discretion to propose policies to reduce healthcare expenditures, which may have a negative impact on payment rates for services, including our tests. The IPAB proposals may impact payments for clinical laboratory services that our diagnostics customers use our technology to deliver beginning in 2016, and for hospital services beginning in 2020, and may indirectly reduce demand for our diagnostic products and product candidates. To the extent that the reimbursement amounts for sepsis decrease, it could adversely affect the market acceptance and hospital adoption of our technologies.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs, including reductions of Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year effective April 1, 2013. Due to subsequent legislative amendments, these reductions will stay in effect through 2024 unless additional congressional action is taken. Further, on January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

We expect that the new presidential administration and U.S. Congress will seek to modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, the Affordable Care Act. Since taking office, President Trump has continued to support the repeal of all or portions of the Affordable Care Act. The U.S. House of Representatives and Senate have recently passed a budget resolution that authorizes congressional committees to draft legislation to repeal all or portions of the Affordable Care Act and permits such legislation to pass with a majority vote in the Senate. President Trump has also recently issued an executive order in which he stated that it is his Administration’s policy to seek the prompt repeal of the Affordable Care Act and directed executive departments and federal agencies to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of, the provisions of the Affordable Care Act to the maximum extent permitted by law. There is still uncertainty with respect to the impact President Trump’s administration and the U.S. Congress may have, if any, and any changes will likely take time to unfold, and could have an impact on coverage and reimbursement for healthcare items and services covered by plans that were authorized by the Affordable Care Act. However, we cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or effect of any healthcare reform legislation or the impact of potential legislation on us.

We cannot predict whether future healthcare initiatives will be implemented at the federal or state level or in countries outside of the United States in which we may do business, or the effect any future legislation or regulation will have on us. The taxes imposed by the new federal legislation and the expansion in government’s effect on the United States healthcare industry may result in decreased profits to us, lower reimbursements by payors for our products and product candidates or reduced medical procedure volumes, any of which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If we are unable to protect our intellectual property effectively, our business would be harmed.

We rely on patent protection as well as trademark, copyright, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property rights related to our proprietary technologies. The strength of patents in our field involves complex legal and scientific questions. Uncertainty created by these questions means that our patents may provide only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. We own or exclusively license over 25 issued U.S. patents and another approximately 25 pending U.S. patent applications, including provisional and non-provisional filings. We also own or license over 50 pending or granted counterpart applications worldwide. If we fail to protect our intellectual property, third parties may be able to compete more effectively against us and we may incur substantial litigation costs in our attempts to recover or restrict use of our intellectual property.

We cannot assure you that any of our currently pending or future patent applications will result in issued patents with claims that cover our products and technologies in the United States or in other foreign countries, and we cannot predict how long it will take for such patents to be issued. Further, issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its

inventorship or scope, and there is no guarantee that our issued patents will include claims that are sufficiently broad to cover our technologies or to provide meaningful protection of our products from our competitors. Further, we cannot be certain that all relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found. Accordingly, there may be prior art that can invalidate our issued patents or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application, at all or with claims that have a scope broad enough to provide meaningful protection from our competitors.

Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our products and technologies, we cannot assure you that other parties will not challenge the validity, enforceability or scope of such issued patents in the United States and in foreign countries, including by proceedings such as re-examination, inter-partes review, interference, opposition, or other patent office or court proceedings. Moreover, we cannot assure you that if such patents were challenged in court or before a regulatory agency that the patent claims will be held valid, enforceable, or be sufficiently broad to cover our technologies or to provide meaningful protection from our competitors. Nor can we assure you that the applicable court or agency will uphold our ownership rights in such patents. Accordingly, we cannot guarantee that we will be successful in defending challenges made against our patents and patent applications. Any successful third-party challenge to our patents could result in the unenforceability or invalidity of such patents, or narrowing of claim scope, such that we could be deprived of patent protection necessary for the successful commercialization of our products and technologies, which could adversely affect our business.

Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our products and technologies or prevent others from designing around our claims. Others may independently develop similar or alternative products and technologies or duplicate any of our products and technologies. These products and technologies may not be covered by claims of issued patents owned by our company. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business. In addition, competitors could purchase our products and attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, willfully infringe our intellectual property rights, design around our protected technology or develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside of the protections provided by our intellectual property rights. If our intellectual property, including licensed intellectual property, does not adequately protect our market position against competitors’ products and methods, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business.

Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product or product candidate under patent protection could be reduced. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions covered by our pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file any patent application related to a product or product candidate. Furthermore, if third parties have filed such patent applications, an interference proceeding in the United States can be initiated by a third party to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. In addition, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available; however the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited.

Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. If we are unable to prevent material disclosure of the non-patented intellectual property related to our technologies to third parties, and there is no guarantee that we will have any such enforceable trade secret protection, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We depend on certain technologies that are licensed to us. We do not control the intellectual property rights covering these technologies and any loss of our rights to these technologies or the rights licensed to us could prevent us from selling our products.

We are a party to a number of license agreements under which we are granted rights to intellectual property that is important to our business and we expect that we may need to enter into additional license agreements in the future. We rely on these licenses in order to be able to use various proprietary technologies that are material to our business, including an exclusive license to patents and patent applications from Massachusetts General Hospital, or MGH, and non-exclusive licenses from other third parties related to materials used currently in our research and development activities, and which we use in our commercial activities. Our rights to use these technologies and employ the inventions

claimed in the licensed patents are subject to the continuation of and our compliance with the terms of those licenses. Our existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose on us, various diligence obligations, payment of milestones or royalties and other obligations. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, or we are subject to a bankruptcy, the licensor may have the right to terminate the license, in which event we would not be able to market products covered by the license.

As we have done previously, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our products and technologies, and we cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our current products and technologies or future products in the absence of such a license. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected products and technologies, which could materially harm our business and the third parties owning such intellectual property rights could seek either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties or other forms of compensation.

In some cases, we do not control the prosecution, maintenance, or filing of the patents that are licensed to us, or the enforcement of these patents against infringement by third parties. Some of our patents and patent applications were not filed by us, but were either acquired by us or are licensed from third parties. Thus, these patents and patent applications were not drafted by us or our attorneys, and we did not control or have any input into the prosecution of these patents and patent applications either prior to our acquisition of, or entry into a license with respect to, such patents and patent applications. With respect to the patents we license from MGH, although we have rights under our agreement to provide input into prosecution and maintenance activities, and are actively involved in such ongoing prosecution, MGH retains ultimate control over such prosecution and maintenance. We therefore cannot be certain that the same attention was given, or will continue to be given, to the drafting and prosecution of these patents and patent applications as we may have exercised if we had control over the drafting and prosecution of such patents and patent applications, or that we will agree with decisions taken by MGH in relation to ongoing prosecution activities. We also cannot be certain that drafting or prosecution of the patents and patent applications licensed to us have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents. Further, as MGH retains the right to enforce these patents against third-party infringement, we cannot be certain that MGH will elect to enforce these patents to the extent that we would choose to do so, or in a way that will ensure that we retain the rights we currently have under our license with MGH. If MGH fails to properly enforce the patents subject to our license in the event of third-party infringement, our ability to retain our competitive advantage with respect to our products and product candidates may be materially affected.

In addition, certain of the patents we have licensed relate to technology that was developed with U.S. government grants. Federal regulations impose certain domestic manufacturing requirements and other obligations with respect to some of our products embodying these patents.

Licensing of intellectual property is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues. Disputes may arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including:

 the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;

 whether and the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;

 our right to sublicense patent and other rights to third parties under collaborative development relationships;

 our diligence obligations with respect to the use of the licensed technology in relation to our development and commercialization of our products and technologies, and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations; and

 the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us and our partners.

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected products and technologies.

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents and proprietary rights, to determine the scope, enforceability and validity of others’ proprietary rights, or to defend against third-party claims of intellectual property infringement, any of which could be time-intensive and costly and may adversely impact our business or stock price.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the medical device and diagnostics industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions and inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or U.S. PTO, and corresponding foreign patent offices. While we have not received notices of claims of infringement or misappropriation or misuse of other parties’ proprietary rights in the past, we may from time to time receive such notices in the future. Some of these claims may lead to litigation. Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, methods of manufacture or methods of use of our products and technologies. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, third parties may have currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our products and technologies may infringe, or which such third parties claim are infringed by the use of our technologies. We cannot assure you that we will prevail in such actions, or that other actions alleging misappropriation or misuse by us of third-party trade secrets or infringement by us of third-party patents, trademarks or other rights, or challenging the validity of our patents, trademarks or other rights, will not be asserted against us.

Litigation may be necessary for us to enforce our patent and proprietary rights or to determine the scope, enforceability or validity of the proprietary rights of others. There has been substantial litigation and other proceedings regarding patent and other intellectual property rights in the medical diagnostics industry. Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. Many of our competitors have significantly larger and more mature patent portfolios than we currently have. In addition, future litigation may involve patent holding companies or other adverse patent owners who have no relevant product revenue and against whom our own patents may provide little or no deterrence or protection. Parties making claims against us for infringement of their intellectual property rights may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our products and technologies. Further, defense of such claims in litigation, regardless of merit, could result in substantial legal fees and could adversely affect the scope of our patent protection, and would be a substantial diversion of employee, management and technical personnel resources from our business. The outcome of any litigation or other proceeding is inherently uncertain and might not be favorable to us. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we could be required to redesign our infringing products or obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and commercializing our products and technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could therefore incur substantial costs for licenses obtained from third parties, if such licenses were available at all, which could negatively affect our gross margins, or prevent us from commercializing our products and technologies. Further, we could encounter delays in product introductions, or interruptions in product sales, as we develop alternative methods or products to avoid infringing third-party rights. In addition, if we resort to legal proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights or to determine the validity, enforceability or scope of the intellectual property or other proprietary rights of others, the proceedings could be burdensome and expensive, even if we were to prevail. Any litigation that may be necessary in the future could result in substantial costs and the diversion of our resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition. Further, if the scope of protection provided by our patents or patent applications is threatened or reduced as a result of litigation, it could discourage third parties from entering into collaborations with us that are important to the commercialization of our products.

We cannot guarantee that we have identified all relevant third-party intellectual property rights that may be infringed by our technology, nor is there any assurance that patents will not issue in the future from currently pending applications that may be infringed by our technology or products or product candidates. We are aware of third parties

that have issued patents and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, Canada, and other jurisdictions in the field of magnetic resonance devices and methods for analyte detection, including the preparation and use of reagents. While we continue to evaluate third-party patents in this area on an ongoing basis, we cannot guarantee that patents we currently are aware of will be found invalid or not infringed if we are accused of infringing them, or if our products are found to infringe, that we will be able to modify our products to cause them to be non-infringing on a timely or cost-effective basis, or at all. We currently monitor the intellectual property positions of some companies in this field that are potential competitors or are conducting research and development in areas that relate to our business, and will continue to do so as we progress the development and commercialization of our products or product candidates. While we continue to evaluate third-party patents in this area on an ongoing basis, we cannot assure you that third parties do not currently have or will not in the future have issued patents or other intellectual property rights that may be infringed by the practice of our technology or the commercialization of our products or product candidates.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or you perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

In addition, certain of our agreements with suppliers, distributors, customers and other entities with whom we do business require us to defend or indemnify these parties to the extent they become involved in infringement claims relating to our technologies or products, or rights licensed to them by us. We could also voluntarily agree to defend or indemnify third parties in instances where we are not obligated to do so if we determine it would be important to our business relationships. If we are required or agree to defend or indemnify any of these third parties in connection with any infringement claims, we could incur significant costs and expenses that could adversely affect our business, operating results, or financial condition.

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

In addition to pursuing patents on our technology, we also rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our products and technologies and discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents, in order to maintain our competitive position. We take steps to protect our intellectual property, proprietary technologies and trade secrets, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, corporate partners, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants that obligate them to assign to us any inventions developed in the course of their work for us. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. Our 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, and we may not be able to prevent such unauthorized disclosure. Monitoring unauthorized disclosure is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to prevent such disclosure are, or will be, adequate. If we were to enforce a claim that a third party had illegally obtained and was using our trade secrets, it would be expensive and time consuming, and the outcome would be unpredictable. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States may be less willing to protect trade secrets. If any of the technology or information that we protect as trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets could impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. For example, the FDA, as part of its Transparency Initiative, is currently considering whether to make additional information publicly available on a routine basis, including information that we

may consider to be trade secrets or other proprietary information, and it is not clear at the present time how the FDA’s disclosure policies may change in the future, if at all.

We may be subject to damages resulting from claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties or that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or other medical device companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we seek to protect our ownership of intellectual property rights by ensuring that our agreements with our employees, collaborators and other third parties with whom we do business include provisions requiring such parties to assign rights in inventions to us, we may also be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. Although no claims against us are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that these employees or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of our employees’ former employers, or we may be subject to ownership disputes in the future arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our products and technologies. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could hamper our ability to commercialize certain potential products, which could severely harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

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

We may also be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. We may be subject to ownership disputes in the future arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our products and technologies. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Recent patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The U.S. PTO is currently developing regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, were enacted March 16, 2013. However, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

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

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and applications will be due to be paid to the U.S. PTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we employ an outside firm and rely on our outside counsel to pay these fees due to non-U.S. patent agencies. The U.S. PTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, however there are situations in which noncompliance can

result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

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

We have not yet registered certain of our trademarks, including T2HemoStat, T2Bacteria and T2Lyme, in all of our potential markets, including in international markets. If we apply to register these trademarks, our applications may not be allowed for registration, and our registered trademarks may not be maintained or enforced. In addition, opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademark applications and registrations, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. If we do not secure registrations for our trademarks, we may encounter more difficulty in enforcing them against third parties than we otherwise would. Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

The laws of some non-U.S. countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending such rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to technologies relating to biotechnology, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Also, because we have not pursued patents in all countries, there exist jurisdictions where we are not protected against third parties using our proprietary technologies. Further, compulsory licensing laws or limited enforceability of patents against government agencies or contractors in certain countries may limit our remedies or reduce the value of our patents in those countries.

We use third-party software that may be difficult to replace or cause errors or failures of our products that could lead to lost customers or harm to our reputation.

We use software licensed from third parties in our products. In the future, this software may not be available to us on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Any loss of the right to use any of this software could result in delays in the production of our products until equivalent technology is either developed by us, or, if available, is identified, obtained and integrated with our technologies and products, which could harm our business. In addition, any errors or defects in, or failures of, such third-party software could result in errors or defects in the operation of our products or cause our products to fail, which could harm our business and reputation and be costly to correct. Many of the licensors of the software we use in our products attempt to impose limitations on their liability for such errors, defects or failures. If enforceable, such limitations would require us to bear the liability for such errors, defects or failures, which could harm our reputation and increase our operating costs.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. The following examples are illustrative:

 others may be able to make diagnostic products and technologies that are similar to our products or product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we own or have exclusively licensed;

 we or our licensors or future collaborators might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patent or pending patent application that we own or have exclusively licensed;