Vivani Medical, Inc.

Three oppositions filed by Pixium Vision are pending in the European Patent Office, each challenging the validity of a European patent owned by Cortigent. The outcomes of the challenges are not certain, however, if successful, they may affect our ability to block competitors from utilizing Cortigent’s neurostimulation patented technology. We believe a successful challenge will not have a material effect on our ability to manufacture and sell our products, or otherwise have a material effect on Cortigent’s neurostimulation operations.

As described in the Company’s 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) for a proposed business combination with Pixium Vision SA (“Pixium”). In response to a press release by Pixium dated March 24, 2021, and subsequent communications between us and Pixium, our Board of Directors determined that the business combination with Pixium was not in the best interest of our shareholders. On April 1, 2021, we gave notice to Pixium that we were terminating the MOU between the parties and seeking an amicable resolution of termination amounts that may be due, however no assurance can be given that an amicable resolution will be reached. We accrued $1,000,000 of liquidated damages as contemplated by the MOU in accounts payable as of March 31, 2021 and remitted that amount to Pixium in April 2021. Pixium indicated that it considered this termination wrongful, rejected the Company’s offers, but retained the $1,000,000 payment. On May 19, 2021, Pixium filed suit in the Paris Commercial Court, and currently claim damages of approximately €5.1 million or about $5.6 million. We believe we have fulfilled our obligations to Pixium with the liquidated damages payment of $1,000,000. On December 8, 2022, the Company received notice that the Paris Commercial Court has rendered its judgement, including finding that the Company’s termination of the MOU was not valid. In the judgment, the Company was ordered to pay to Pixium the amount of €2,500,000 minus a €947,780 credit for the $1,000,000 already paid for, a net amount payable of approximately €1,552,220. On May 24, 2023, the Company filed an appeal against the judgment from the Paris Commercial Court except in so far as such prior judgment dismissed (i) Pixium’s claim for the Company to pay it a sum of €480,693 relating to the alleged time spent by its teams, (ii) Pixium’s application to order the Company to pay it a sum of €1,500,000 in respect to alleged loss of opportunity and (iii) deducted the sum of $1,000,000 that we already paid Pixium and which Pixium retained converted into euros at the date of the judgment. Thereafter Pixium filed its brief with Paris Court of Appeal and filed a cross-appeal on January 18, 2024. Meanwhile, the Company received notice that the Paris Commercial Court had opened safeguard proceedings against Pixium by judgment dated October 9, 2023, then in its judgment dated November 13, 2023, converted safeguard proceedings into receivership, and in its judgment dated January 31, 2024, converted Pixium’s receivership proceedings to liquidation proceedings, the transfer plan being rejected. As a result, Pixium’s liquidator intervened on behalf of Pixium in the pending proceedings before the Paris Court of Appeal and filed its brief on March 21, 2024. The Company filed its brief in reply with the Paris Court of Appeal on April 17, 2024. Proceedings before the Paris Court of Appeal are pending. In parallel, since the Company has failed to enforce the judgment, Pixium has requested the pre-trial judge to strike out the Company's appeal for failure to enforce the judgment. The hearing took place on June 4, 2024 and on October 23, 2024, the pre-trial judge issued his order, striking out Vivani's appeal for failure to enforce the decision. Within two years, Vivani will have to request that the case be reinstated on the court's docket, providing evidence that the judgment has been fully enforced or, at the very least, that an agreement has been reached. Failing this, the appeal proceedings will lapse.

The Company recorded a charge of $1,675,000 for the year ended December 31, 2022, related to this matter but plans to continue its appeal against the preliminary judgment.

We are party to litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. It is our opinion that the outcome of such matters will not have a material effect on our financial statements, however the results of litigation and claims are inherently unpredictable. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.