Sight Sciences Inc

On September 16, 2021, we filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01317) (the “Court”) alleging that Ivantis, Inc. (“Ivantis”) directly and indirectly infringes our U.S. Patent Nos. 8,287,482, 9,370,443, 9,486,361, and 10,314,742 by making, using, selling, and offering for sale the Hydrus® Microstent. Our complaint seeks money damages and injunctive relief. On January 24, 2022, Ivantis asserted counterclaims requesting declaratory judgments that our asserted patents-in-suit are not infringed and/or invalid. On August 1, 2022, we filed an amended complaint alleging that Alcon Inc., Alcon Vision, LLC and Alcon Research, LLC (collectively, “Alcon”) infringe the four originally asserted patents by making, using, selling, and offering for sale the Hydrus® Microstent, and that all defendants also infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,389,328. The defendants asserted counterclaims requesting declaratory judgments that our asserted patents-in-suit are not infringed and/or are invalid. In September 2022, Ivantis and Alcon filed petitions with the U.S. Patent Office seeking inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,287,482, 9,370,443, 9,486,361, and 10,314,742 (IPR2022-01529, IPR2022-01530, IPR2022-01533, IPR2022-01540), each of which the U.S. Patent Office denied for raising prior art references and invalidity arguments that were cumulative of those previously considered by the U.S. Patent Office. On April 26, 2024, at the conclusion of a five-day jury trial, we were awarded a positive jury trial verdict of $34 million, comprised of $5.5 million in lost profits damages and $28.5 million in royalty damages for commercial sales of the Hydrus Microstent for the period between its commercial launch through trial. The patents at issue were U.S. Patent Nos. 8,287,482, 9,370,443, and 11,389,328. In December 2024, the Court held an in-person hearing to hear the parties’ oral arguments on their post-trial briefings at the conclusion of which, the Court ordered the parties to engage in non-binding mediation. In early March 2025, we and Alcon informed the Court that we had not resolved our dispute through mediation, and asked the Court to decide the parties’ post-trial motions and enter a judgement, which judgment will be subject to appeal. We are presently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or to reasonably estimate the potential financial impact of the lawsuit on us, if any.

We may, in the ordinary course of business, face various claims brought by third parties, and we may, from time to time, make claims or take legal actions to assert our rights, including intellectual property rights as well as claims relating to employment matters and the safety or effectiveness of our products. Any of these claims could subject us to costly litigation, and, while we generally believe that we have adequate insurance to cover many different types of liabilities, our insurance carriers may deny coverage, may be inadequately capitalized to pay on valid claims, or our policy limits may be inadequate to fully satisfy any damage awards or settlements. If this were to happen, the payment of any such awards or settlement payments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, any such claims, whether or not successful, could damage our reputation, cause us to expend resources on legal fees, result in the distraction of our management team, and harm our business and ability to achieve our strategic objectives.