AETHLON MEDICAL INC

Unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires, references to the “Company”, “Aethlon”, “we”, “us” and “our” refer to Aethlon Medical, Inc.

Overview and Corporate History

Overview

We are a medical therapeutic company focused on developing the Hemopurifier® (HP), a clinical-stage immunotherapeutic device intended for applications in cancer, life-threatening viral infections, and organ transplantation and other areas of significant unmet needs. In human studies (164 sessions with 38 patients), the Hemopurifier was used safely and demonstrated the potential to remove enveloped viruses. In pre-clinical studies, the Hemopurifier has exhibited the capacity to remove harmful extracellular vesicles (EVs) and enveloped viruses from biological fluids, utilizing its proprietary lectin-based mechanism. These extracellular vesicles have been implicated in disease processes such as immune suppression and metastasis in cancer as well as in the progression of severe life-threatening infectious diseases. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has designated the Hemopurifier as a “Breakthrough Device” for two independent indications:

We are also evaluating the Hemopurifier’s potential in additional clinical contexts based on its mechanism of action and preclinical findings.

We believe that the Hemopurifier may be a substantial advancement in the treatment of patients with advanced and metastatic cancer through its design to bind to and remove harmful remove harmful extracellular vesicles particles that promote the growth and spread of tumors. In October 2022, we formed a wholly-owned subsidiary in Australia to initially conduct oncology-related clinical research, then seek regulatory approval and commercialize our Hemopurifier in Australia.

We completed anin vitro binding study of extracellular vesicles from cancer patient samples, to provide pre-clinical evidence to support our trial design and translational endpoints. Our study indicated positive results from this study, providing evidence that our Hemopurifier removes extracellular vesicles, or EVs, from plasma. This translational study provides pre-clinical evidence to support our phase 1 safety, feasibility and dose-finding clinical trials of our Hemopurifier in patients with solid tumors who have stable or progressive disease during anti-PD-1 monotherapy treatment, such as Keytruda® or Opdivo®.

We have launched in an Australia safety, feasibility and dose-finding clinical trials of the Hemopurifier in cancer patients with solid tumors who have stable or progressive disease during anti-PD-1 monotherapy treatment, such as Keytruda® (pembrolizumab) or Opdivo® (nivolumab). The primary endpoint of the approximately nine to 18-patients, is safety. Exploratory analyses will be conducted to explore the number of HP treatments required to produce sustained reductions of EVs as well as improve anti-tumor T cell activity. We plan to open a similarly designed trial in India.

The following three hospitals in Australia have received ethics committee approval, have gone through training on our device and are open for patient enrollment: Royal Adelaide Hospital in Adelaide, Australia and Pindara Private Hospital in the Gold Coast section of Australia and GenesisCare North Shore Hospital in Sydney, Australia. As of June 26, 2025, we have treated three participants in the first of the three treatment cohorts. Once these patients have completed the pre-specified 7-day safety follow-up period, the data will be presented to an independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). The DSMB will provide a recommendation to Aethlon senior leadership on advancing to the next cohort where participants will receive 2 HP treatments during the one week treatment period.

The Company continues to pursue approval of a similar clinical trial in India. HREC approval has previously been obtained at Medanta Medicity Hospital. Following this a meeting with Subject Expert Committee (SEC) of the India Regulatory Agency CDSCO was held 5JUN2025. We are awaiting the formal approval letter of the CDSCO. The clinical trial at Medanta can commence following a Site Initiation Visit (SIV) by the company’s India CRO, Qualtran.

We also believe that the Hemopurifier can be part of the broad-spectrum treatment of life-threatening highly glycosylated, or carbohydrate coated, viruses that are not addressed with an already approved treatment. In small-scale or early feasibility human studies, the Hemopurifier has been used in the past to treat individuals infected with human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, hepatitis-C and Ebola.

Additionally, in vitro, the Hemopurifier has been demonstrated to capture Ebola, Marburg virus, Zika, Lassa, MERS-CoV, Cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr, Herpes simplex, Chikungunya, Dengue, West Nile, H1N1 swine flu, H5N1 bird flu, and the reconstructed 1918 Spanish flu virus. In several cases, these studies were conducted in collaboration with leading government or non-government research institutes.

The Hemopurifier has previously been studied under FDA and international regulatory frameworks for the treatment of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. While we terminated our U.S. and India-based COVID-19 studies due to low ICU patient volume and shifting priorities, these programs demonstrated real-world use of the Hemopurifier in critically ill patients. We maintain an open IDE for viral indications to preserve optionality for future outbreaks or emergent pathogens.

We have sufficient inventory of Hemopurifiers to support our ongoing oncology trial in Australia as well as any near-term expansion of that study or potential trial activity in India. While we have received FDA approval to begin manufacturing at our San Diego facility under our IDE supplement, we are still awaiting FDA approval of a separate supplement to qualify an additional supplier of a key Hemopurifier component. We continue to work with the FDA on this process.

The Aethlon R&D laboratory continues to explore potential new indications for the Hemopurifier. We have published in the peer-reviewed journalTransplant Immunology the ability of the device to remove extracellular vesicles and their microRNA cargo from acellular perfusates of discarded kidneys that had undergone normothermic machine perfusion.

On May 12, 2025, the results of our pre-clinical ex vivo study entitled “Ex Vivo Removal of CD41 positive platelet microparticles from Plasma by a Medical Device containing a Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA) affinity resin” were published in the pre-print vehicle bioRxiv. This manuscript has been submitted to a peer-reviewed publication for review.

Platelet-derived extracellular vesicles (PD-EVs) are the most numerous EV population in the body and are released by platelets in response to a variety of stimuli. The cargo contained within these EVs have been noted to take part in damage to blood vessels, activation of immune cells and spread of tumor cells. Excessive levels of PD-EVs have been implicated in a myriad of diseases including cancer, lupus, systemic sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, sepsis, acute and Long COVID.

We hypothesized that the Aethlon Hemopurifier which contains a propriety GNA affinity resin would remove platelet derived EVs from plasma. In this experiment two hundred milliliters on donated healthy human plasma were circulated over the Aethlon Hemoupurifier (HP) to simulate a clinical HP session. The study results showed a 98.5% removal of platelet -derived EVs at a timepoint equivalent to a 4-hour HP treatment. The results of this study support the current Australian Clinical Trial in Oncology as well as open the investigation of the Hemopurifier in many indications.

Extracellular vesicles have been implicated in the pathogenesis of Long COVID. As we had previously demonstrated removal of extracellular vesicles by the Hemopurifier in a patient with severe acute COVID-19 infection, we hypothesized that patients with Long COVID would have extracellular vesicles with the mannose sugar on their surface that would bind to the affinity resin in our device. We partnered with investigators at the Univ of California San Francisco Medical Center Long COVID clinic to obtain samples from participants with Long COVID as well as controls that had had COVID -10 infection but had recovered. The data to be presented will review the binding of larger and smaller extracellular vesicles to the GNA lectin and the lectin affinity resin, respectively. We believe the data from this pre-clinical study calls for additional study of the Hemopurifier and look forward to receiving feedback from the Long COVID scientific community at the Keystone Symposium.

Successful outcomes of human trials will also be required by the regulatory agencies of certain foreign countries where we plan to market and sell the Hemopurifier. Some of our patents may expire before FDA approval or approval in a foreign country, if any, is obtained. However, we believe that certain patent applications and/or other patents issued to us more recently will help protect the proprietary nature of our Hemopurifier treatment technology.

In addition to the foregoing, we are monitoring closely the impact of inflation, recent bank failures and the war between Russia and Ukraine and the military conflicts in Israel and the surrounding areas, as well as related political and economic responses and counter-responses by various global factors on our business. Given the level of uncertainty regarding the duration and impact of these events on capital markets and the U.S. economy, we are unable to assess the impact on our timelines and future access to capital. The full extent to which inflation, recent bank failures and the ongoing military conflicts will impact our business, results of operations, financial condition, clinical trials and preclinical research will depend on future developments, as well as the economic impact on national and international markets that are highly uncertain.

On March 10, 1999, Aethlon, Inc., a California corporation, Hemex, Inc., a Delaware corporation and the accounting predecessor to Aethlon, Inc., and Bishop Equities, Inc., a publicly traded Nevada corporation, completed an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization structured to result in Bishop Equities, Inc.’s acquisition of all of the outstanding common stock of Aethlon, Inc. and Hemex, Inc. Under the plan’s terms, Bishop Equities, Inc. issued shares of its common stock to the stockholders of Aethlon, Inc. and Hemex, Inc. such that Bishop Equities, Inc. then owned 100% of each company. Upon completion of the transaction, Bishop Equities, Inc. was renamed Aethlon Medical, Inc. Our executive offices are located at 11555 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 203, San Diego, California 92121. Our telephone number is (619) 941-0360. Our website address is www.aethlonmedical.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of, and is not incorporated into, this Annual Report.

The Mechanism of Action (MOA) of the Hemopurifier

The Hemopurifier is a lectin-affinity plasmapheresis extracorporeal device designed for the removal of harmful extracellular vesicles and life-threatening enveloped viruses from the plasma component of the bloodstream. In the United States, the Hemopurifier is classified as a combination product whose regulatory jurisdiction is the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, or CDRH, the branch of FDA responsible for the premarket approval of all medical devices.

In our current applications, our Hemopurifier can be used with approved dialysis machines serving as a blood pump. It could also potentially be developed as part of a proprietary closed system with its own pump and tubing set, negating the requirement for dialysis infrastructure.

The Hemopurifier - Clinical Experience

Hepatitis C and HIV

The initial clinical development of the Hemopurifier focused on the viral infections Hepatitis C and HIV. Clinical trials conducted in India and a safety trial demonstrated the removal of both viruses from the bloodstream with a benign safety profile. Prior to FDA approval of the IDE feasibility study, we conducted investigational HCV treatment studies at the Apollo Hospital, Fortis Hospital, and the Medanta Medicity Institute in India. In the Medanta Medicity Institute study, 12 HCV-infected individuals were enrolled to receive three six-hour Hemopurifier treatments during the first three days of a 48-week peginterferon+ribavirin treatment regimen. The study was conducted under the leadership of Dr. Vijay Kher. Dr. Kher’s staff reported that Hemopurifier therapy was well tolerated and without device-related adverse events in the 12 patients treated.

Of these 12 patients, ten completed the Hemopurifier-peginterferon+ribavirin treatment protocol, including eight genotype-1 patients and two genotype-3 patients. Eight of the ten patients achieved a sustained virologic response, which is the clinical definition of treatment cure and is defined as undetectable HCV in the blood 24 weeks after the completion of the 48-week peginterferon+ribavirin drug regimen. Both genotype-3 patients achieved a sustained virologic response, while six of the eight genotype-1 patients achieved a sustained virologic response, which defines a cure of the infection. Our IDE safety study in end stage renal disease patients on dialysis who were infected with HCV was conducted at DaVita MedCenter Dialysis in Houston, Texas. We reported that there were no device-related adverse events in enrolled subjects who met the study inclusion-exclusion criteria. We also reported that an average capture of 154 million copies of HCV (in International Units, I.U.) within the Hemopurifier during four-hour treatments.

The initial clinical development of the Hemopurifier was focused on the viral infections Hepatitis C and HIV. Clinical trials conducted in India and a safety trial demonstrated the removal of both viruses from the bloodstream with a benign safety profile. Prior to FDA approval of the IDE feasibility study, we conducted investigational HCV treatment studies at the Apollo Hospital, Fortis Hospital, and the Medanta Medicity Institute in India. In the Medanta Medicity Institute study, 12 HCV-infected individuals were enrolled to receive three six-hour Hemopurifier treatments during the first three days of a 48-week peginterferon+ribavirin treatment regimen. The study was conducted under the leadership of Dr. Vijay Kher. Dr. Kher’s staff reported that Hemopurifier therapy was well tolerated and without device-related adverse events in the 12 treated.

Of these 12 patients, ten completed the Hemopurifier-peginterferon+ribavirin treatment protocol, including eight genotype-1 patients and two genotype-3 patients. Eight of the ten patients achieved a sustained virologic response, which is the clinical definition of treatment cure and is defined as undetectable HCV in the blood 24 weeks after the completion of the 48-week peginterferon+ribavirin drug regimen. Both genotype-3 patients achieved a sustained virologic response, while six of the eight genotype-1 patients achieved a sustained virologic response, which defines a cure of the infection. Our IDE safety study in end stage renal disease patients on dialysis who were infected with HCV was conducted at DaVita MedCenter Dialysis in Houston, Texas. We reported that there were no device-related adverse events in enrolled subjects who met the study inclusion-exclusion criteria. We also reported that an average capture of 154 million copies of HCV (in International Units, I.U.) within the Hemopurifier during four-hour treatments.

In addition to treating Ebola and HCV-infected individuals, we also conducted a single proof-of-principle treatment study at the Sigma New Life Hospital in an AIDS patient who was not being administered HIV antiviral drugs. In the study, viral load was reduced by 93% as the result of 12 Hemopurifier treatments (each four hours in duration) that were administered over the course of one month.

With the advent of highly effective anti-retroviral drugs for HIV (HAART), and curative direct acting antivirals (DACs) for Hepatitis C, clinical development for these indications was abandoned.

Ebola Virus-Single Patient Emergency Use

Under Emergency use conditions a single patient with Ebola infection with multiple organ dysfunction was treated with the Hemopurifier at Frankfurt University Hospital in Germany. The patient tolerated a single 6.5-hour Hemopurifier treatment. Prior to treatment, the Ebola viral load was measured at 400,000 copies/ml. The post-treatment viral load was 1,000 copies/ml. Calculations by the treating physician indicated that 242 million copies of Ebola virus were captured within the Hemopurifier during treatment. The patient made a full recovery. Based on this experience, the Company filed an Expanded Access protocol with the FDA to treat Ebola virus infected patients in up to ten centers in the United States and a corresponding protocol was approved by HealthCanada. These protocols remain open, allowing Hemopurifier treatment to be offered to patients presenting for care in both countries. In 2018, the FDA designated the Hemopurifier as a Breakthrough Device “… for the treatment of life-threatening viruses that are not addressed with approved therapies.”

Severe Acute SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Infection– Emergency Use and Clinical Trials

SARS-COV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19 is a member of the coronavirus family, which includes the original SARS virus, SARS-CoV, and the MERS virus. SARS-CoV-2, found to contain mannose on the envelope surface. This suggests that the Hemopurifier could potentially clear it from biological fluids, including blood.

Under Single Patient Emergency Use regulations, we have treated two patients with COVID-19 with the Hemopurifier. We published a manuscript reviewing case studies covering those two Single Patient Emergency Use treatments entitled “Removal of COVID-19 Spike Protein, Whole Virus, Exosomes and Exosomal microRNAs by the Hemopurifier® Lectin-Affinity Cartridge in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 Infection” in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Medicine

The manuscript described the use of the Hemopurifier for a total of nine sessions in two critically ill COVID-19 patients. The first case study demonstrated the improvement in the patient who was a SARS-COV-2 positive COVID-19 present at entry to the hospital, with associated coagulopathy, or CAC, lung injury, inflammation, and tissue injury despite the absence of demonstrable COVID-19 viremia at the start of treatment at Day 22.This patient received eight Hemopurifier treatments without complications and eventually was weaned from a ventilator and was discharged from the hospital. Plasma samples from this patient revealed a decrease in extracellular vesicle counts over the course of the eight treatments and decreases in exosomal microRNAs associated with the development of coagulopathy and acute lung injury.

The second patient case study demonstrated in vivo removal of SARS-CoV-2 virus from the blood stream of an infected patient. This patient completed a six-hour Hemopurifier treatment without complications and subsequently was placed on continuous renal replacement therapy, or CRRT. The patient ultimately expired three hours after being placed on CRRT because of the advanced stage of the patient’s disease.

On June 17, 2020, the FDA approved a supplement to our open IDE for the Hemopurifier in viral disease to allow for the testing of the Hemopurifier in patients with SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 in a New Feasibility Study. That study was designed to enroll up to 40 subjects at up to 20 centers in the United States. Subjects had to have an established laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19, be admitted to an ICU, and have acute lung injury and/or severe or life-threatening disease, among other criteria. Endpoints for this study, in addition to safety, include reduction in circulating virus, as well as clinical outcomes (NCT # 04595903). In June 2022, the Company completed the treatment protocol for its first patient in this study.

In June 2022, the Company completed the treatment protocol of the only participant enrolled in the study. study. The patient received one HP treatment daily for 4 days. This patient died following cardiac arrest (not related to the HP treatment) as a consequence of severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Blood samples taken from the patient did not reveal any evidence of viremia. Plasma sent for cytokine analysis revealed a numeric decrease in the levels of IP-10, MCP-1, and IL-10.

A similarly designed trial was also conducted in India. One patient was enrolled on February 16, 2022, at Medanta Medicity Hospital, Gurugram, Haryana 12200, India. The patient tolerated one HP treatment daily for three days. On 19 February 2022, in the first 15 min during the 3rd treatment, one nonserious Grade 2 AE was reported (hemolysis and leaking of the filter). The filter was replaced, and therapy resumed without sequalae. On Day #4 the patient suffered asystole and died due to clinical deterioration unrelated to the device. During the first Hemopurifier treatment (T1) there was a gradual decrease in viral load from the baseline at 4923 copies/mL decreasing steadily to 1307 copies/mL over five hours, indicating a 73% reduction from baseline. At the beginning of the second Hemopurifier treatment (T2), the viral load was 850 copies/mL, dropped below the lower limit of quantification within an hour, and remained undetectable, suggesting rapid clearance. The viral load before the third treatment (T3) was below the quantification limit but unexpectedly rose at 3 hours (636 copies/mL), peaking at 4 hours (1583 copies/mL), and slightly decreasing at 5 hours (1104 copies/mL). This irregular pattern suggests possible delayed RNA release, sample variability, or another biological factor affecting detection. The cumulative data shows a reduced SARs-CoV-2 viral load during the first two Hemopurifier treatments but not during the third treatment.

Due to lack of eligible patients in the ICU the clinical trial was closed as November 22, 2022.

Oncology- U.S. Clinical Trial in Head and Neck Cancer

A single center clinical trial entitled “Depleting Exosomes to Improve Response to Immune Therapy in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Cancer: An Early Feasibility Phase I Clinical Trial” was conducted under a US IDE at the University of Pittsburgh. This was a single arm Phase 1 clinical trial designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Hemopurifier plus pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer. All patients were treated with pembrolizumab every 21 days as standard of care. The patients were to receive a 4-hour Hemopurifier treatment before Pembrolizumab infusions 2 occasions 21 days apart. A total of 2 patients were enrolled in the study with the first occurring on Dec 14, 2020. The first patients received 2 HP treatments, and the second patient received one HP treatment. The second treatment in the second patient was terminated due to operator error. Eighteen no serious adverse events occurred in the two patients with none thought related to the device.

The only exploratory efficacy laboratory analysis that was performed in this study was a determination of the total nanoparticle concentrations in the 1st patient prior to and for 14 days after the second HP treatment. Total nanoparticle concentrations decreased following each Hemopurifier treatment. Following Hemopurifier treatment, the total nanoparticle concentrations rose by about Day 7 but did not reach the baseline levels. Exosomes levels are a component of the total nanoparticle concentration but exosome levels over time were not specifically determined.

Research and Development Costs

A substantial portion of our operating budget is used for research and development activities. The cost of research and development, all of which has been charged to operations, amounted to approximately $2,212,000 and $2,520,000 in the fiscal years ended March 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively.

Recent Developments

On June 25, 2025, the Company received notice from Nasdaq stating the Company has regained compliance with Listing Rule 5550(a)(2), and that the matter is now closed.

Reverse Split – Following the approval of a reverse stock split at a Special Meeting of Stockholders on May 13, 2025, our Board of Directors approved a 1-for-8 reverse stock split of our outstanding shares of Common Stock, effective as of the close of business on June 6, 2025 with an effective trading date of June 9, 2025. Accordingly, each eight shares of outstanding common stock held by stockholders were combined into one share of common stock. Our authorized common stock remained at 60,000,000 shares following the stock split. We issued an additional 77 shares as a result of rounding up fractional shares related to the reverse stock split.

On June 2, 2025 a second patient was treated with the Hemopurifier at GenesisCare North Shore Hospital in Sydney, Australia. The patient was treated with the Aethlon Hemopurifier for 4 hours in a single day and tolerated the procedure without complications. The patient will have follow-up safety visits, EV and T cell measurements as well as imaging for clinical response.

Intellectual Property

We currently own or have license rights to a number of U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications and endeavor to continually improve our intellectual property position. We consider the protection of our technology, whether owned or licensed, to the exclusion of use by others, to be vital to our business. While we intend to focus primarily on patented or patentable technology, we also rely on trade secrets, unpatented property, know-how, regulatory exclusivity, patent extensions and continuing technological innovation to develop our competitive position. We also own certain trademarks.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to protect our proprietary technology, including the Hemopurifier product platform, and to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. We rely on a combination of patent, trade secret, copyright and trademark laws, as well as confidentiality agreements, licensing agreements and other agreements, to establish and protect our proprietary rights. Our success also depends, in part, on our ability to avoid infringing patents issued to others. If we were judicially determined to be infringing on any third-party patent, we could be required to pay damages, alter our products or processes, obtain licenses or cease sales of products or certain activities.

To protect our proprietary medical technologies, including the Hemopurifier product platform and other scientific discoveries, we have a portfolio of over 32 issued patents and pending applications worldwide. We currently have three issued U.S. patents and 14 issued patents in countries outside of the United States. In addition, we have 15 patent applications pending worldwide related to our Hemopurifier product platform and other technologies. We are seeking additional patents on our scientific discoveries.

It is possible that our pending patent applications may not result in issued patents, that we will not develop additional proprietary products that are patentable, that any patents issued to us may not provide us with competitive advantages or will be challenged by third parties and that the patents of others may prevent the commercialization of products incorporating our technology. Furthermore, others may independently develop similar products, duplicate our products or design around our patents. U.S. patent applications are not immediately made public, so it is possible that a third party may obtain a patent on a technology we are actively using.

There is a risk that any patent applications that we file and any patents that we hold or later obtain could be challenged by third parties and declared invalid or unenforceable. For many of our pending applications, patent interference proceedings may be instituted with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, when more than one person files a patent application covering the same technology, or if someone wishes to challenge the validity of an issued patent. At the completion of the interference proceeding, the USPTO will determine which competing applicant is entitled to the patent, or whether an issued patent is valid. Patent interference proceedings are complex, highly contested legal proceedings, and the USPTO’s decision is subject to appeal. This means that if an interference proceeding arises with respect to any of our patent applications, we may experience significant expenses and delays in obtaining a patent, and if the outcome of the proceeding is unfavorable to us, the patent could be issued to a competitor rather than to us. Third parties can file post-grant proceedings in the USPTO, seeking to have issued patent invalidated, within nine months of issuance. This means that patents undergoing post-grant proceedings may be lost, or some or all claims may require amendment or cancellation, if the outcome of the proceedings is unfavorable to us. Post-grant proceedings are complex and could result in a reduction or loss of patent rights. The institution of post-grant proceedings against our patents could also result in significant expenses.

Patent law outside the United States is uncertain and in many countries, is currently undergoing review and revisions. The laws of some countries may not protect our proprietary rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Third parties may attempt to oppose the issuance of patents to us in foreign countries by initiating opposition proceedings. Opposition proceedings against any of our patent filings in a foreign country could have an adverse effect on our corresponding patents that are issued or pending in the United States. It may be necessary or useful for us to participate in proceedings to determine the validity of our patents or our competitors’ patents that have been issued in countries other than the United States. This could result in substantial costs, divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Outside of the United States, we currently have pending patent applications or issued patents in Europe, India, Russia, Canada, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong.

In addition to patent protection, we rely on unpatented trade secrets and proprietary technological expertise. It is possible that others could independently develop or otherwise acquire substantially equivalent technology, somehow gain access to our trade secrets and proprietary technological expertise or disclose such trade secrets, or that we may not successfully ultimately protect our rights to such unpatented trade secrets and proprietary technological expertise. We rely, in part, on confidentiality agreements with our marketing partners, employees, advisors, vendors and consultants to protect our trade secrets and proprietary technological expertise. We cannot assure you that these agreements will not be breached, that we will have adequate remedies for any breach or that our unpatented trade secrets and proprietary technological expertise will not otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors.

Patents

The following table lists our issued patents and patent applications, including their ownership status, including relevant patent term adjustments (PTA), which is a process of extending the term of a U.S. patent:

Patents Issued in the United States

Patent Applications Pending in the United States

Foreign Patents

Pending Foreign Patent Applications

Pending International Patent Applications

Trademarks

*****The US Application for SANSAGITTA abandoned on 12/2/24. It was used as the basis application for a Madrid registration, and the corresponding above-listed designated country registrations can be converted to national applications to avoid abandonment.

Trademarks

In addition to the Sansagitta trademarks noted in the above table, we also have trademark registrations in the United States for Hemopurifier and Aethlon Medical, Inc., and obtained a trademark registration in India for Hemopurifier. We also have common law trademark rights in Aethlon ADAPT™ and ELLSA™.

Industry & Competition

The industry for treating infectious disease and cancer is extremely competitive, and companies developing new treatment procedures face significant capital and regulatory challenges. As our Hemopurifier is a clinical-stage device, we have the additional challenge of establishing medical industry support, which will be driven by treatment data resulting from human clinical studies. Should our device become market cleared by the FDA or the regulatory body of another country, we may face significant competition from well-funded pharmaceutical organizations. Additionally, we would likely need to establish large-scale production of our device in order to be competitive. Our competitors include blood filters produced by ExThera Medical Corporation.

Government Regulation

The Hemopurifier is subject to regulation by numerous regulatory bodies, primarily the FDA, and comparable international regulatory agencies. These agencies require manufacturers of medical devices to comply with applicable laws and regulations governing the development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, marketing, storage, distribution, advertising and promotion, and post-marketing surveillance reporting of medical devices. As the primary mode of action of the Hemopurifier is attributable to the device component of this combination product, the CDRH has primary jurisdiction over its premarket development, review and approval. Failure to comply with applicable requirements may subject a device and/or its manufacturer to a variety of administrative sanctions, such as issuance of warning letters, import detentions, civil monetary penalties and/or judicial sanctions, such as product seizures, injunctions and criminal prosecution.

FDA’s Pre-market Clearance and Approval Requirements

Each medical device we seek to commercially distribute in the United States will require either a prior 510(k) clearance, unless it is exempt, or a pre-market approval from the FDA. Generally, if a new device has a predicate that is already on the market under a 510(k) clearance, the FDA will allow that new device to be marketed under a 510(k) clearance; otherwise, a premarket approval, or PMA, is required. Medical devices are classified into one of three classes—Class I, Class II or Class III—depending on the degree of risk associated with each medical device and the extent of control needed to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Class I devices are deemed to be low risk and are subject to the general controls of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, such as provisions that relate to: adulteration; misbranding; registration and listing; notification, including repair, replacement, or refund; records and reports; and good manufacturing practices. Most Class I devices are classified as exempt from pre-market notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act, and therefore may be commercially distributed without obtaining 510(k) clearance from the FDA. Class II devices are subject to both general controls and special controls to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Special controls include performance standards, post market surveillance, patient registries and guidance documents. A manufacturer may be required to submit to the FDA a pre-market notification requesting permission to commercially distribute some Class II devices. 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 cleared 510(k) device, are placed in Class III. A Class III device cannot be marketed in the United States unless the FDA approves the device after submission of a PMA. However, there are some Class III devices for which FDA has not yet called for a PMA. For these devices, the manufacturer must submit a pre-market notification and obtain 510(k) clearance in orders to commercially distribute these devices. The FDA can also impose sales, marketing or other restrictions on devices in order to assure that they are used in a safe and effective manner. We believe that the Hemopurifier will be classified as a Class III device and as such will be subject to PMA submission and approval.

Pre-market Approval Pathway

A pre-market approval application must be submitted to the FDA for Class III devices for which the FDA has required a PMA. The pre-market approval application process is much more demanding than the 510(k) pre-market notification process. A pre-market approval application must be supported by extensive data, including but not limited to technical, preclinical, clinical trials, manufacturing and labeling to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction reasonable evidence of safety and effectiveness of the device.

After a pre-market approval application is submitted, the FDA has 45 days to determine whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review and thus whether the FDA will file the application for review. The FDA has 180 days to review a filed pre-market approval application, although the review of an application generally occurs over a significantly longer period of time and can take up to several years. During this review period, the FDA may request additional information or clarification of the information already provided. Also, an advisory panel of experts from outside the FDA may be convened to review and evaluate the application and provide recommendations to the FDA as to the approvability of the device.

Although the FDA is not bound by the advisory panel decision, the panel’s recommendations are important to the FDA’s overall decision making process. In addition, the FDA may conduct a preapproval inspection of the manufacturing facility to ensure compliance with the Quality System Regulation, or QSR. The agency also may inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with FDA’s regulations.

Upon completion of the PMA review, the FDA may: (i) approve the PMA which authorizes commercial marketing with specific prescribing information for one or more indications, which can be more limited than those originally sought; (ii) issue an approvable letter which indicates the FDA’s belief that the PMA is approvable and states what additional information the FDA requires, or the post-approval commitments that must be agreed to prior to approval; (iii) issue a not approvable letter which outlines steps required for approval, but which are typically more onerous than those in an approvable letter, and may require additional clinical trials that are often expensive and time consuming and can delay approval for months or even years; or (iv) deny the application. If the FDA issues an approvable or not approvable letter, the applicant has 180 days to respond, after which the FDA’s review clock is reset.

Emergency Use Authorizations, or EUAs, are granted by FDA in public health emergencies but allow use of the authorized device only during the period of the respective public health emergency, and do not change the requirement to ultimately seek PMA approval after the authorization period has ended.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are almost always required to support pre-market approval and are sometimes required for 510(k) clearance. In the United States, for significant risk devices, these trials require submission of an application for an IDE to the FDA. The IDE application must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory testing results, showing it is safe to test the device in humans and that the testing protocol is scientifically sound. The IDE must be approved in advance by the FDA for a specific number of patients at specified study sites. During the trial, the sponsor must comply with the FDA’s IDE requirements for investigator selection, trial monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping. The investigators must obtain patient informed consent, rigorously follow the investigational plan and study protocol, control the disposition of investigational devices and comply with all reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Clinical trials for significant risk devices may not begin until the IDE application is approved by the FDA and the appropriate institutional review boards, or IRBs, at the clinical trial sites. An IRB is an appropriately constituted group that has been formally designated to review and monitor medical research involving subjects and which has the authority to approve, require modifications in, or disapprove research to protect the rights, safety and welfare of human research subjects. The FDA or the IRB at each site at which a clinical trial is being performed may withdraw approval of a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a belief that the risks to study subjects outweigh the benefits or a failure to comply with FDA or IRB requirements. Even if a trial is completed, the results of clinical testing may not demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the device, may be equivocal or may otherwise not be sufficient to obtain approval or clearance of the product.

Ongoing Regulation by the FDA

Even after a device receives clearance or approval and is placed on the market, numerous regulatory requirements apply. These include:

Some changes to an approved PMA device, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new PMA or PMA supplement, as appropriate, before the change can be implemented. Supplements to a PMA often require the submission of the same type of information required for an original PMA, except that the supplement is generally limited to that information needed to support the proposed change from the device covered by the original PMA. The FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing PMA supplements as it does in reviewing original PMAs.

Failure by us or by our suppliers to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA or state authorities, which may include any of the following sanctions:

The Medical Device Reporting laws and regulations require us to provide information to the FDA when we receive or otherwise become aware of information that reasonably suggests our device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury as well as a device malfunction that likely would cause or contribute to death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur. In addition, the FDA prohibits an approved device from being marketed for off-label use. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including substantial monetary penalties and criminal prosecution.

Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory clearance or approval of our products under development.

**Healthcare Regulation **

In addition to the FDA’s restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, the U.S. healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include: the federal fraud and abuse laws, including the federal anti-kickback and false claims laws; federal data privacy and security laws; and federal transparency laws related to payments and/or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and other healthcare professionals (such as physicians assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals. Many states have similar laws and regulations that may differ from each other and federal law in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts. For example, states have anti-kickback and false claims laws that may be broader in scope than analogous federal laws and may apply regardless of payor. In addition, state data privacy laws that protect the security of health information may differ from each other and may not be preempted by federal law. Moreover, several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to, among other things, establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales and marketing activities, report information related to drug pricing, require the registration of sales representatives, and prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. These laws may adversely affect our sales, marketing and other activities with respect to any product candidate for which we receive approval to market in the United States by imposing administrative and compliance burdens on us.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors, it is possible that some of our business activities, particularly any sales and marketing activities after a product candidate has been approved for marketing in the United States, could be subject to legal challenge and enforcement actions. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, including, without limitation, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

From time to time, legislation is drafted and introduced in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the regulatory approval, manufacture and marketing of regulated products or the reimbursement thereof. For example, in the United States, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, ACA, among other things, reduced and/or limited Medicare reimbursement to certain providers and imposed an annual excise tax of 2.3% on any entity that manufactures or imports medical devices offered for sale in the United States, with limited exceptions. However, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, this ACA-mandated medical device tax. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Further, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the "donut hole" under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how such challenges and any additional healthcare reform measures will impact the ACA.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. The Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended by subsequent legislation, further reduces Medicare’s payments to providers by two percent through fiscal year 2032. These reductions may reduce providers’ revenues or profits, which could affect their ability to purchase new technologies. Furthermore, the healthcare industry in the United States has experienced a trend toward cost containment as government and private insurers seek to control healthcare costs by imposing lower payment rates and negotiating reduced contract rates with service providers. In July 2021, the Biden Administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” which contained provisions relating to prescription drugs. On September 9, 2021, in response to this executive order, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. Further, the IRA, among other things (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be implemented but is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. In addition, in response to the Biden administration’s October 2022 executive order, on February 14, 2023, HHS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility, and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future.

Legislation could be adopted in the future that limits payments for our products from governmental payors. In addition, commercial payors such as insurance companies, could adopt similar policies that limit reimbursement for medical device manufacturers’ products.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In both the U.S. and international markets, the use of medical devices is dependent in part on the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors, such as government and private insurance plans. Healthcare providers that use medical devices generally rely on third-party payors to pay for all or part of the costs and fees associated with the medical procedures being performed or to compensate them for their patient care services. Should our Hemopurifier or any other products under development be approved for commercialization by the FDA, any such products may not be considered cost-effective, reimbursement may not be available in the United States or other countries, if approved, and reimbursement may not be sufficient to allow sales of our future products on a profitable basis. The coverage decisions of third-party payors will be significantly influenced by the assessment of our future products by health technology assessment bodies. If approved for use in the United States, we expect that any products that we develop, including the Hemopurifier, will be purchased primarily by medical institutions, which will in turn bill various third-party payors for the health care services provided to patients at their facility. Payors may include the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, which administers the Medicare program and works in partnership with state governments to administer Medicaid, other government programs and private insurance plans. The process involved in applying for coverage and reimbursement from CMS is lengthy and expensive. Further, Medicare coverage is based on our ability to demonstrate that the treatment is “reasonable and necessary” for Medicare beneficiaries. Even if products utilizing our Hemopurifier technology receive FDA and other regulatory clearance or approval, they may not be granted coverage and reimbursement by any payor, including by CMS. Many private payors use coverage decisions and payment amounts determined by CMS as guidelines in setting their coverage and reimbursement policies and amounts. However, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for medical devices exists among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

Manufacturing

Historically, manufacturing of our Hemopurifier was conducted in collaboration with a contract manufacturer based in California, operating under current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP, regulations promulgated by the FDA. Our contract manufacturer is registered with the FDA. To date, production of the Hemopurifier has been limited to quantities necessary to support our clinical studies.

In May 2024, the FDA approved the use of our own manufacturing for the production of Hemopurifiers. We have since initiated manufacturing activities at our facility under cGMP conditions to support ongoing and planned clinical development.

Our costs of compliance with federal, state and local environmental laws have been immaterial to date.

Sources and Availability of Raw Materials and the Names of Principal Suppliers

Aethlon personnel assemble the various components of the Hemopurifier with materials from our various suppliers, which are purchased and released by Aethlon. Specifically, the Hemopurifier contains three critical components with limited available suppliers. The GNA lectin is sourced from Vector Laboratories Inc. and also is available from other suppliers. Our intended transition from Vector Laboratories to a new supplier for GNA is delayed as we work with the FDA for approval of our supplement to our IDE, which is required to make this manufacturing change. The base cartridge on which the Hemopurifier is constructed is sourced from Medica S.p.A and we are dependent on the continued availability of these cartridges. Although there are other suppliers, the process of qualifying a new supplier takes time and regulatory approvals must be obtained. We currently purchase the diatomaceous earth from Janus Scientific, Inc., as the distributor; however, the product is manufactured by Imerys Minerals Ltd. There potentially are other suppliers of this product, but as with the cartridges, qualifying and obtaining required regulatory approvals takes time and resources.

Sales and Marketing

We do not currently have any sales and marketing capability. With respect to commercialization efforts in the future, we intend to build or contract for distribution, sales and marketing capabilities for any product candidate that is approved. From time to time, we have had and are having strategic discussions with potential collaboration partners for our product candidates, although no assurance can be given that we will be able to enter into one or more collaboration agreements for our product candidates on acceptable terms, if at all.

Product Liability

The risk of product liability claims, product recalls and associated adverse publicity is inherent in the testing, manufacturing, marketing and sale of medical products. We have limited clinical trial liability insurance coverage. It is possible that future insurance coverage may not be adequate or available. We may not be able to secure product liability insurance coverage on acceptable terms or at reasonable costs when needed. Any liability for mandatory damages could exceed the amount of our coverage. A successful product liability claim against us could require us to pay a substantial monetary award. Moreover, a product recall could generate substantial negative publicity about our products and business and inhibit or prevent commercialization of other future product candidates.

Employees

As of June 26, 2025, we had 9 full-time employees and no part-time employees. All of our employees are located in the United States. We do intend to hire additional employees. We utilize, whenever appropriate, consultants in order to conserve cash and resources.

We believe our employee relations are good. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or are subject to collective-bargaining agreements.