RxSight, Inc. (RXST) Business

Item 1. Business

Overview

RxSight, Inc. is a commercial-stage medical technology company dedicated to providing high-quality customized vision to patients following cataract surgery. Our proprietary RxSight® Light Adjustable Lens system (“RxSight system”) is the first and only commercially available premium cataract technology that enables doctors to customize and optimize visual acuity for patients after surgery. The RxSight system is comprised of our RxSight Light Adjustable Lens®(LAL®/LAL+®, collectively the “LAL”), RxSight Light Delivery Device (“LDD™”) and related accessories. The LAL is a premium intraocular lens (“IOL”) made from the proprietary silicone-based photosensitive material that undergoes controlled changes in refractive power when exposed to specific ultraviolet (“UV”) light patterns generated by the LDD.

We designed our RxSight system to address limitations of conventional premium IOL technologies by providing doctors with a more precise and adaptable method for achieving desired visual outcomes for their patients. Conventional premium IOLs require patients to select their visual priorities before surgery and accept the optical trade-offs inherent in those choices. Surgeons must rely on a series of preoperative measurements and predictive formulae to determine the appropriate lens power. If the selected power is not optimal, the patient may experience less-than-ideal results that could require a subsequent corneal refractive procedure or other corrective measures to achieve intended vision targets.

In contrast, with the RxSight system, the surgeon implants the LAL as they would in any other cataract procedure, determines refractive error with patient input several weeks following surgery and then uses the LDD to modify the LAL with the precise visual correction needed to achieve the patient’s desired vision outcomes. We believe our RxSight system provides doctors and patients increased confidence and peace of mind by eliminating the high-stakes preoperative guesswork common to competitive premium IOLs and allowing patients to iterate their final vision characteristics with customized post-surgical adjustments.

A cataract is the loss of transparency in the eye’s natural lens, which causes blurry or hazy vision and can eventually lead to blindness. Approximately 50% of all individuals develop some form of cataracts by age 60, usually in both eyes, and prevalence increases with age. Among the world’s most commonly performed procedures, cataract surgery involves removing the cloudy natural lens and replacing it with a clear IOL. Prior to surgery, patients can opt for either a spherical monofocal IOL, which usually results in improved vision but may require glasses for best vision, or a premium IOL, which also corrects for astigmatism and/or presbyopia, thereby reducing spectacle dependence. In the U.S., Medicare and private insurers typically cover the full cost of spherical monofocal IOL procedures, while premium IOL procedures require patients to pay an incremental out-of-pocket fee, typically ranging from $2,000 to $5,000 per eye depending on the specific premium IOL used. In the U.S., the world’s largest premium IOL market, 2025 premium procedures represented about 21% of all cataract procedures and generated approximately $860 million in revenue, a figure that is projected to grow at a 8.0% compound annual growth rate (“CAGR”) by 2030, according to the Market Scope 2025 Premium Cataract Surgery Market Report.

We believe that the premium cataract surgery market remains underpenetrated due to both doctors’ reluctance to recommend competitive premium IOLs to the full universe of eligible patients and patients’ confusion in assessing the associated trade-offs and side effects with competitive premium IOLs. We believe competitive premium IOLs often fail to deliver on patients’ expectations for quality vision across a range of distances without glasses.

We believe our RxSight system offers doctors and patients a significantly more reliable approach that can consistently deliver optimal, fully customized visual outcomes with few compromises, ultimately driving broad adoption and establishing it as the standard of care for premium cataract procedures. The key benefits of our solution include:

•
Allowing full customization and optimization of patient vision after surgery. Our LAL uses a proprietary silicone formulation that enables changing the mechanical and optical properties of the lens following implantation. Our LDD uses proprietary software and algorithms to deliver a short UV light exposure treatment that polymerizes specific portions of the lens and allows doctors to adjust spherical and cylindrical refraction in 0.25 diopter increments, similar to the adjustment increments used to refract patients for glasses or contact lenses, as well as in other refractive procedures like LASIK. All other premium IOLs are fixed-power lenses that cannot be adjusted following surgery;

•
Delivering superior visual outcomes with low risk of side effects. In our Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) clinical trial, 70% of LAL patients achieved 20/20 or better uncorrected visual acuity without glasses, while in similar trials of other premium IOLs, only about 40% of patients achieved this performance level. Additionally, LAL patients do not experience increased incidence of glare or halos that are common with other premium IOLs;

1

•
Providing accuracy and precision to optimize vision with both eyes. Most LAL patients choose minor differences in the refractive correction of each eye. In our most recent Phase IV commercial study data over 90% of patients were able to achieve 20/25 or better at distance without glasses, which is significantly higher than any of the alternative IOLs. In addition, over 90% of patients were also able to read 5-point font at near vision, which is typically the size of footnotes on a page;

•
Enabling patients to preview and compare possible vision outcomes. LAL patients are the only premium IOL patients able to test-drive their vision after surgery but before selecting a final refractive outcome. With up to three possible UV light treatments to adjust the LAL, patients direct their optimal visual acuity through an interactive and iterative process; and

•
Empowering doctors to grow their practices with a premium IOL they can trust and confidently recommend. Our RxSight system has been shown to deliver excellent visual outcomes across a broad range of patient types and preferences. In our 2025 RxSight customer survey, 90% of respondents said they thought our RxSight system delivered the highest quality vision, 96% said they would recommend the LAL to others and 78% said they would select it for their own eyes.

Our commercial efforts began in 2019, and have been primarily focused in the U.S., where we are building a “razor and razor blade” business model to drive new customer adoption and ongoing LAL volume growth. Our U.S. commercial organization includes a direct sales team of LDD sales personnel and LAL account managers, as well as clinical specialists, field service engineers and marketing personnel. Our sales efforts are concentrated on the approximately 3,500 to 4,000 U.S. cataract surgeons that perform approximately 60% of all premium IOL procedures. As of December 31, 2025, we had established an installed base of 1,134 LDDs in ophthalmology practices and, since our inception through December 31, 2025, surgeons have implanted approximately 300,000 LALs.

We plan to grow our business primarily by expanding the size of our LDD installed base and driving increased utilization of our LAL through heightened awareness of the superior clinical outcomes our RxSight system provides patients. To continue to strengthen our competitive position in the premium IOL market, our research and development activities are focused primarily on programs that improve clinical outcomes, improve customer experience, expand our indications for use, reduce manufacturing costs and lifecycle management.

Our market and industry

Cataracts and other common vision conditions

Common vision conditions can be roughly divided by two defining factors: 1) the typical age of onset and 2) whether the condition is more closely linked to the cornea, the front surface of the eye that controls about two-thirds of its focusing ability, or the natural lens, which sits behind the iris and is responsible for the eye’s remaining focusing power. From childhood through the fourth decade of life, refractive conditions related primarily to the cornea – myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism – typically have the greatest impact on visual acuity and are usually addressed with glasses and contact lenses. In adults with these conditions, corneal procedures like LASIK can reduce dependence on glasses and contact lenses.

By age 50, most people also experience presbyopia, which manifests itself as increased difficulty seeing at near and intermediate distances without glasses or contact lenses. Presbyopia occurs because the natural lens is losing its elasticity and, therefore, its ability to focus light rays on near objects. By age 60, approximately half of all individuals also develop some form of cataracts, in which the normally clear lens loses its transparency and increasingly obstructs or otherwise interferes with the passage of light to the retina. The result is blurry or hazy vision and increased sensitivity to light, particularly at night, that cannot be treated with glasses or contact lenses. Cataracts are irreversible, progressive and usually affect both eyes. Cataracts can

2

significantly interfere with daily activities, affect quality of life and eventually cause blindness. According to the National Eye Institute, despite the availability of effective surgical treatment, cataracts are the leading cause of blindness worldwide.

Cataract surgery

Cataract surgery is among the most common surgical procedures performed in the world and involves replacement of the patient’s natural cloudy lens with a clear artificial IOL. In the U.S., the procedure is commonly performed in an outpatient setting, such as an Ambulatory Surgery Center (“ASC”), by an ophthalmologist specializing in cataract surgery and often requires only 5 to 15 minutes to complete. In most cases, surgery begins with removal of the cataractous lens through a process known as phacoemulsification. During phacoemulsification, the ophthalmic surgeon makes a small surgical incision in the cornea and inserts an ultrasonic probe that breaks up, or emulsifies, the lens while a hollow needle removes the pieces of the lens (see image 1 below). After the cataract is removed, the surgeon inserts the replacement IOL through the same surgical incision (see image 2 below). Following implantation, the IOL sits firmly in place just behind the iris (see image 3 below).

Conventional vs. premium cataract surgery

Cataract surgery is often bifurcated into two categories based on IOL type, as follows:

•
Conventional: The patient receives a monofocal IOL, which is designed to provide vision at one pre-defined distance without correction for other visual problems that often affect cataract surgery patients such as corneal astigmatism and presbyopia. Nearly all patients undergoing conventional cataract surgery will need to rely on glasses following cataract surgery to achieve the best distance, intermediate and near vision.

•
Premium: The patient receives a premium IOL, which is designed to address the shortcomings of conventional monofocal lenses by also correcting for the additional visual problems of astigmatism and/or presbyopia. Premium IOLs reduce the need for glasses relative to conventional IOLs but may impose trade-offs related to their ability to provide glasses-free near, intermediate and distance vision, as well as the potential for increased incidence of halos, glare and other side effects relative to monofocal IOLs.

Healthcare payors typically cover the full cost of conventional cataract procedures. In the U.S., a healthcare payor (primarily Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”)) typically provides reimbursement for a conventional cataract procedure of approximately $500 for a surgeon fee and approximately $1,000 for a facility fee, which includes the cost of a conventional monofocal IOL. Accounting for reductions in CMS reimbursement and for inflation, reimbursement rates have decreased by two thirds since 1991. The surgeon fee covers all pre-operative cataract testing, the cataract operation and follow-up care for three months.

For U.S. premium cataract procedures, the healthcare payor (primarily CMS) reimburses the same surgeon and facility fees, but the patient pays the surgeon an additional fee of approximately $2,000 for implantation of a toric IOL and an average between $2,000-$5,000 for implantation of other premium lenses, which includes the cost of the premium IOL. Consequently, premium cataract procedures are between 10 and 15 times more profitable for the doctors and ophthalmology practices than

3

conventional cataract procedures and are less impacted by changes in reimbursement rates. At the same time, because premium cataract patients pay an additional out-of-pocket fee, they tend to have high expectations that the surgeon will satisfy their desire for quality, glasses-free vision.

Our market opportunity

According to the Market Scope 2025 Premium Cataract Surgery Market Report and 2025 Market Scope IOL Report:

•
Approximately 33 million cataract surgeries were performed globally in 2025, including 5.2 million in the U.S. The number of procedures worldwide is projected to grow at a CAGR of 3.4% to over 39 million by 2030. In the U.S., procedures are expected to grow at a CAGR of 3.2% to 6.1 million by 2030;

•
The U.S.is the world’s largest premium IOL market. In 2025, premium IOL procedures represented approximately 21% and 15% of cataract surgeries in the U.S. and worldwide, respectively;

•
In 2025, premium IOL revenue was approximately $2.6 billion globally and $860 million in the U.S., and is expected to grow at an 11% CAGR globally and in the U.S., through 2030. Key growth drivers include the increasing number of patients who prefer to be glasses-free, technological innovations, increased access to healthcare and rising disposable income; and

•
In the U.S., there are approximately 9,500 ophthalmic surgeons that perform cataract surgery, including approximately 3,500 to 4,000 that perform roughly 60% of premium IOL cataract procedures.

We believe there is an opportunity to gain market share in the premium IOL market segment and also increase the penetration of premium IOLs in the broader market by converting doctors and patients currently electing for conventional cataract surgery. We believe that the premium cataract surgery market remains underpenetrated due to both doctors’ reluctance to recommend premium IOL offerings to the full universe of eligible patients and patients’ confusion in assessing the trade-offs associated with the wide range of commercially available premium IOL offerings. Furthermore, we believe current non-adjustable premium IOL offerings often cannot deliver on patient expectations regarding their desire to see at near, intermediate and far distances without reliance on glasses and to avoid troubling side effects such as glare, halos and loss of contrast sensitivity.

We are currently focused on driving awareness and penetration of our RxSight system in the premium cataract market, and primarily concentrating our near-term commercial efforts on the U.S. We believe the U.S.is a compelling market given the large population of individuals over the age of 60 that are covered by health insurance, the concentrated base of cataract surgeons experienced with premium IOL offerings, the high gross domestic product per capita and the favorable U.S. healthcare reimbursement system, which has a well-established history of covering a portion of the cost for cataract surgery.

Non-adjustable premium IOLs and their limitations

Prior to the commercial availability of our RxSight system, doctors and patients chose from two primary types of premium IOLs, as follows:

•
Multifocal Lenses. Multifocal lenses have two or more corrective zones, which allow the patient to receive focused light from different distances. Although multifocal lenses provide patients with a wider range of vision compared to the standard monofocal IOLs, multifocal lenses split light across the multiple corrective zones on the lens, sometimes impacting visual quality. For example, approximately two to three times as many patients who choose a multifocal lens over a monofocal lens experience side effects such as glare and halos, as well as reduced contrast vision, which are especially problematic in low light situations such as driving at night. For some patients these become more pronounced and can lead to explantation (removal of the IOL and replacement with another type of IOL). Extended-depth-of-focus (“EDOF”) lenses are similar to multifocals, except they have only one corrective zone. They create an elongated focal point that allows for a broader range of vision, although patients may still require glasses for distance and near vision. EDOF lenses will still typically result in glare and halos, as well as reduced contrast vision, although generally less severe than those experienced with multifocal lenses; and

•
Astigmatism-Correcting or Toric Lenses. Toric lenses correct for astigmatism, a condition in which the cornea is not uniformly curved leading to distortion of near and distance vision. According to the 2025 Market Scope IOL Report, approximately 70% of the population has clinically significant astigmatism of 0.5 diopters or more. Corrective toric lenses can provide additional distance, intermediate or near vision correction depending on the power of the lens selected and if their optical design incorporates either multifocal or EDOF features.

4

When preparing patients for premium cataract surgery, surgeons must have a comprehensive understanding of available premium IOL options and how to best match a patient to the technology that fits their priorities. Patient decisions are based on several factors and tend to be heavily influenced by surgeon recommendations, as well as the patient’s motivation for independence from glasses and willingness to tolerate side effects. During an initial consultation, surgeons often ask patients to fill out a survey regarding their vision experiences and expectations to determine if the patient is a good premium IOL candidate. If so, the surgeon helps select the appropriate premium IOL based on the patient’s lifestyle and the type of vision they most value (i.e., near, intermediate or distance). Significant time is often required to educate patients on the various trade-offs with respect to the visual outcomes associated with each type of premium IOL. Following this consultation, surgery is usually scheduled within several weeks or months.

Prior to surgery, the patient’s eyes are measured using one or more diagnostic devices to help the surgeon predict the lens focusing power best suited to achieve the optimal postoperative outcome. Focusing power, expressed in diopters (D), refers to how a lens focuses light to a point (spherical power) or a line (cylindrical or astigmatic power). Accurately predicting lens power is critical to reducing postoperative residual refractive error and delivering the best possible visual outcomes. Because the lens power of competitive premium IOLs cannot be changed after implantation, doctors rely on a series of preoperative diagnostic tests and predictive formulae to determine the lens power. Typically, the patient returns a day after surgery to have their eye evaluated and ensure healing is underway. After approximately one month, premium cataract patients that are dissatisfied with their results may be fitted for glasses or elect to undergo a secondary, remedial procedure to meet desired vision targets. A separate LASIK procedure is the most common surgical procedure to correct any residual visual errors following the cataract procedure.

A key limitation of these competitive premium IOLs is that they cannot be adjusted after the surgery and, as such, require the patient to commit to a desired visual outcome prior to the procedure. However, in discussing vision optimization options with patients ahead of the procedure, it can be difficult to effectively demonstrate different visual outcomes. Once a premium IOL is selected, another key limitation is the ability of the surgeon to precisely predict the correct lens power and then implant the IOL with the level of accuracy required to deliver the patient’s expected outcome. Additionally, the incision made to remove the cloudy lens and insert the IOL along with the resultant healing process often creates additional levels of astigmatism, which cannot be predicted with precision before cataract surgery.

We believe that the need to commit to a visual outcome before surgery combined with the limited ability to make adjustments following the procedure are key factors contributing to the low levels of premium IOL penetration. When expectations regarding postoperative visual acuity and independence from glasses are not met, patients are often disappointed. As a result, even though 60% of cataract patients rate “being glasses free after cataract surgery” as extremely important, surgeons are often hesitant to recommend existing premium IOLs to their patients.

Our solution

We designed our RxSight system to address the shortcomings of existing premium IOL technologies and provide a solution that doctors can trust to improve visual outcomes and achieve high levels of patient satisfaction. We began commercializing our solution in the U.S. in 2019, and are focused on establishing the RxSight system as the standard of care for premium IOL procedures. As of December 31, 2025, we had an installed base of 1,134 LDDs in ophthalmology practices, and since our inception, approximately 300,000 surgeries have been performed with our RxSight system.

Overview of the RxSight system

Our RxSight system is the first and only FDA-approved IOL technology that enables doctors to customize and optimize visual acuity for patients after cataract surgery. With the RxSight system, the doctor performs a standard cataract procedure to implant the LAL, determines refractive error with patient input after healing is complete, then uses the LDD to reshape the LAL to achieve the patients’ desired vision outcomes. Our RxSight system is comprised of two key components, along with other intraoperative and postoperative accessories:

•
RxSight Light Adjustable Lens: The LAL is our proprietary IOL that can be adjusted postoperatively to improve uncorrected visual acuity. Our IOL is made of special photosensitive material that changes shape and power when a specific pattern of UV light is delivered from the LDD.

•
RxSight Light Delivery Device: The LDD is our proprietary office-based light treatment device that delivers UV light in a precisely programmed pattern to induce a predictable change in the shape and refractive properties of the LAL, enabling surgeons to precisely modify the LAL based on the visual correction needed to achieve the patient’s desired vision after cataract surgery.

5

Our foundational technology

We have developed our RxSight system over the last 20 years, incorporating expertise and proprietary technologies across multiple disciplines, including optics, material science, chemistry, software and hardware engineering. The proprietary RxSight technology that enables post-operative adjustability is based on the principles of photochemistry. The LAL is made of a photosensitive material that changes shape and power when a specific pattern of UV light is delivered to the LAL.

Our LAL, which we manufacture using our proprietary silicone formulation, leverages the unique material properties of silicone. Silicone consists of an inorganic silicon-oxygen backbone, which is a chain of alternating silicon and oxygen atoms with an attached side group, which is a pair of organic molecules bonded to each silicon atom in the chain. Combined with organic side functionality including reactive groups, silicones can be cross-linked at multiple points resulting in three-dimensional structures. By varying chain length, attached side group and cross-linking design, silicone polymers can be tailored to have unique properties, leading to their broad use across a wide array of applications. We have developed a novel application of silicone to optimize the mechanical and optical properties of IOLs in order to improve vision in patients following cataract surgery.

To create the LAL, we use a composition of silicone polymers including low molecular weight functionalized polymer, we call them “macromers”, mixed with photo-active molecules and other compounds. The initial composition of our lens material is a viscous liquid that is thermally cured in a lens mold. Thermal curing and photopolymerization use temperature and ultraviolet light, respectively, to initiate and propagate a polymerization reaction. To avoid polymerizing the macromers in the composition, the thermal curing is performed at a low temperature. The partial polymerization of the LAL results in a solid but soft silicone lens, leaving the photosensitive macromers unpolymerized and distributed throughout the lens. While the resulting lens is optically clear, the macromers and photo-active molecules remain free to continuously move within the lens.

After packaging and sterilization, the LAL is ready to be implanted as part of a standard cataract surgical procedure to replace the patient’s natural lens. Once wound healing is complete, a short exposure of UV light is applied to the LAL to adjust the refractive properties of the lens. When the UV light is directed to a specific portion of the lens, the exposed macromers in that portion of the lens are polymerized and become stationary. This creates an excess concentration of free macromers in the unexposed portion of the lens and sets up a diffusion gradient over which the unpolymerized macromers move from the concentrated area to the less concentrated area. Over the next one to two days, the unpolymerized macromers redistribute across the lens to achieve a uniform distribution. The redistribution of the macromers causes the exposed portion of the lens to swell relative to the unexposed portion of the lens, enabling refractive power change.

The movement of the macromers causes a highly predictable change in the curvature of the lens. If the central portion of the lens is exposed to UV light, unpolymerized macromers in the periphery of the lens move into the central portion. As a result, the central portion of the lens swells, creating a lens shape for correction of hyperopia. Conversely, if the periphery of the lens is exposed to UV light, unpolymerized macromers in the central portion of the lens migrate into the periphery. As a result, the periphery of the lens swells, creating a lens shape for correction of myopia. In addition to spherical correction for myopia or hyperopia, customized cylinder adjustments along any axis of the lens can be targeted to correct for astigmatism.

To achieve the desired refractive change in the LAL, our LDD uses proprietary software and algorithms to deliver a short UV exposure treatment that polymerizes specific portions of the lens according to a predefined pattern of light, called a nomogram. Nomograms allow for adjustment of spherical and cylindrical refraction in 0.25 diopter increments, like the adjustment increments used to refract patients for glasses or contact lenses, as well as in other refractive procedures like LASIK, which has similar refractive accuracy. Designed for placement in the doctor’s office, the LDD is a combination of a standard slit

6

lamp and a digital light projector. The slit lamp portion allows the doctor to see inside the patient’s eye and align the light beam with the LAL. The digital light projector portion projects an image onto the LAL using DLP technology that has approximately 250,000 micro mirrors that are electronically activated to represent an image stored in memory.

Each UV light treatment consumes only a portion of the macromers in the lens, allowing the LAL to be adjusted multiple times. This process can be repeated up to three times over a period of several weeks, until the patient and doctor are satisfied. The entire lens is then polymerized to provide a stable correction. After adjustment light treatments are completed, one or two lock-in light treatments are applied to consume all remaining macromers and photo-active compounds. After the final lock-in treatment, the lens power can no longer be adjusted.

Our approach

With the RxSight system, the surgeon performs a standard IOL implant procedure, replacing the patients’ natural lens with the LAL. Two to three weeks following surgery, the patient visits the doctor’s office for a standard postoperative refraction, which is similar to the eye test used to create a prescription for eye glasses. Using a traditional phoropter and vision chart, a clinician determines the refractive error and prescription required and inputs the information into the LDD’s graphical user interface. The patient’s eye is dilated and a contact lens is applied to the eye as the patient is seated in front of the LDD for a light treatment. Based on the prescription input, the LDD generates a programmed, predetermined exposure of UV light. For approximately 100 seconds, the light painlessly and non-invasively reshapes the implanted LAL to correct the measured refractive error. The entire treatment takes less than five minutes. The patient returns approximately three to five days later for additional light treatments to further adjust their vision, if desired, or to lock-in the lens. While patients can receive up to three adjustments, the average number of adjustments in our FDA clinical trial was 1.6.

The RxSight system enables a fully interactive and iterative process to optimize visual acuity with patients able to test drive their vision, comparing possible outcomes before selecting a final prescription for their LAL. In clinical practice since our FDA approval, roughly 86% of patients choose some form of blended vision and 73% of those patients change their target during the course of LDD treatments to optimize their spherical target, underscoring the value of adjustability and customization. From the time of surgery until 24 hours after the LAL is locked in, the patient wears UV light protective glasses as unprotected exposure to light can cause uncontrolled changes in the LAL. Since late 2021, we have included ActivShield technology on all LALs, which provides an extra layer of UV protection on the lens surface and reduces dependence on patient compliance with protective glasses.

Key benefits of the RxSight system for patients

•
Superior vision outcomes. In the pivotal study that formed the basis for our FDA approval, the observed rate of eyes with 20/20 or better uncorrected distance visual acuity for our LAL was 70.1%. This compares favorably to the results of pivotal studies with similar study designs and patient populations that supported FDA approval of Alcon’s Acrysof Toric (38.4%) and J&J’s Tecnis Toric (43.6%). Most LAL patients choose minor differences in the refractive correction of each eye. In our most recent Phase IV commercial study data over 90% of LAL patients who chose to optimize vision with both eyes, achieved 20/25 or better distance vision and were also able to read 5-point font without glasses;

•
Postoperative customization. Our RxSight system enables patients to preview and compare possible vision outcomes after surgery based on their unique preferences and lifestyle requirements before they select a final prescription for their LAL. With up to three possible adjusting light treatments, patients can dial-in their optimal visual acuity through an interactive and iterative process;

•
No increase in glare and halo. Our LALs do not induce higher rates of glare and halos compared to monofocal IOLs. In contrast, multifocal IOLs, generally relied upon to improve near vision, are associated with a higher incidence of unwanted side effects including reduced contrast sensitivity and increased glare and halos around bright lights. These problems can lead to explants, in which patients undergo another procedure to remove the multifocal IOL and replace it with another type of IOL. In FDA studies for the Alcon Panoptix and J&J Symfony, 48.8% and 59.2% of subjects, respectively, reported being bothered by halos postoperatively; and

•
Corrects residual refractive error. The RxSight system can reduce the potential for secondary surgical procedures by correcting residual refractive error after surgery using our office based LDD to shape the LAL. With other premium IOLs, a separate LASIK procedure is generally the only way to correct for residual visual errors following the primary cataract procedure.

Key benefits of RxSight system for doctors

7

•
Clear value proposition for patients, helping doctors to build their premium cataract practices. Rather than explaining the complicated trade-offs with respect to visual outcomes and predicting refraction before surgery, the surgeon may simply tell patients that their vision will be corrected postoperatively via a painless, in-office process similar to being prescribed glasses. The doctor can also share the LALs clinical results with the patient to provide reassurance that the procedure will deliver desired results;

•
Increased confidence. The clinical benefit of “dialing-in” to achieve superior visual outcomes postoperatively increases doctors’ confidence that the LAL can meet patients’ expectations. The doctor does not need to decide prior to surgery whether the patient will be particularly sensitive to suboptimal visual outcomes or side effects (such as glare, halo and loss of contrast). The patient is also unlikely to need a postoperative adjustment such as LASIK to improve their outcome;

•
Fewer intraoperative measurements. With other premium IOLs, the lens power is fixed and cannot be changed after surgery, requiring doctors to spend considerable time on preoperative and intraoperative measurements to estimate the most suitable lens power to implant and lens position. With our RxSight system, surgeons are not as dependent on preoperative and intraoperative equipment for measurements. Instead, they can focus on the surgical procedure, knowing refractive error will be corrected postoperatively with the LDD, and with the patient’s active involvement;

•
Broad application across different patients’ needs. Our IOLs can address a broad range of patient types and needs, while providing a solution that doctors can trust to improve visual outcomes, eliminating the need for extensive preoperative discussions with patients about which IOL may best fit their lifestyle and visual preferences. Moreover, the superior outcomes and patient-centered approach of the RxSight system helps drive patient referrals and grow premium cataract volumes, which generally produce higher practice revenue and profit margin than conventional procedures; and

•
Economic benefits that drive practice growth. Based on a 2024 economic impact survey by Haffey & Company, of the practices using the RxSight system revealed that LAL procedures were sourced from all other categories of other IOLs. For example, respondents indicated that approximately 40% of their LAL patients would have otherwise selected a conventional monofocal IOL, which is far less profitable for a practice than a LAL procedure. In addition, based on an average of 11 LALs implanted per month at these practices, doctors observed a payback period of approximately six months for the LDD, based on the current list purchase price. Following this payback period, practices continue to reap the financial benefit of converting patients to the RxSight system.

Our growth strategies

We are leveraging the tangible and compelling benefits of our RxSight solution to achieve broad adoption of our technology and establish it as the standard of care for premium cataract surgery. Our growth strategies include:

•
Establishing new customers and ensuring optimal patient outcomes. We believe our technology offers a differentiated value proposition to doctors and patients, providing us an opportunity to grow our share in the premium IOL market and increase the penetration of premium IOLs in the broader cataract surgery market. To grow our installed base, we are focused primarily on converting high-volume premium cataract surgeons to the RxSight system by highlighting its clinical, economic and workflow benefits compared to competing premium IOL technologies. Secondarily, we are focused on the broader pool of cataract surgeons who may implant premium IOLs sparingly or not at all due to suboptimal visual outcomes, persistent side effects and uneven patient satisfaction sometimes associated with non-adjustable premium IOL offerings. Because our RxSight system is designed to overcome these shortcomings, we believe many of these doctors have the potential to be successful RxSight customers. We are also investing in professional education, additional clinical studies and registries that expand our evidence base, facilitating peer-to-peer dialogue and forums and communicating the benefits of our technology through marketing initiatives, tradeshows and podium presentations;

•
Increasing the utilization of our LALs by empowering doctors to grow their practices. We work closely with every new customer to conduct a thorough training and onboarding process, providing a high level of service to help the practice succeed with the RxSight system. This support helps the practice confidently recommend the LAL to an increasing number of patients and, in turn, grow their practice. In a recent RxSight customer survey conducted by Haffey & Company, 90% of doctors said they thought our RxSight system delivered the highest quality vision, 96% said they would recommend the LAL to others and 79% said they would select it for their own eyes. In addition to personnel support, we also provide practices with marketing materials, such as patient brochures, literature and digital content for website and social media promotions. We also provide ongoing training related to new technology features and developments, as well as education on the patient benefits of our solution;

8

•
Strategically expanding our commercial organization and marketing activities. Since launching the RxSight system commercially in late 2019, we have substantially increased the size and scope of our U.S. commercial organization. While we believe our current commercial organization is well built to reach our focused target of high-volume premium cataract surgeons, we will add highly qualified personnel for time to time, with a strategic mix of sales personnel and clinical specialists, to drive higher levels of awareness and penetration in certain regions. We also expect to accelerate marketing initiatives and professional education, including training on best practices and techniques;

•
Investing in RxSight system enhancements and expanding indications. We continue to enhance our RxSight system to improve the patient and doctor experience, meet evolving customer needs and address the widest possible patient population. Since our initial FDA approval in November 2017 through December 31, 2025, we have received approximately 55 supplemental approvals. Recent enhancements include the addition of low diopter powers for the LAL+®, improvements to our manufacturing processes and improvements to the LDD software. We believe these technological advancements help to drive increased adoption of our RxSight system;

•
Scaling our business to achieve cost and production efficiencies. We expect to realize operating leverage through increased scale efficiencies as our commercial operations grow. We have executed a number of design and manufacturing process improvements to streamline both LAL and LDD production. We are also concurrently executing on our strategy to optimize our diverse supply chain. The combination of these strategies may drive margin improvement in the future when introduced into production and offered for sale; and

•
Growing our commercial operations in international markets. While our current commercial focus is on the large opportunity within the U.S., we believe the RxSight system offers compelling benefits for cataract doctors and patients in select international markets. According to the Market Scope 2025 Premium Cataract Surgery Market Report, approximately 78% of the premium IOL procedures in 2025 were outside the U.S. Our RxSight system has regulatory approval in the U.S., Europe, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, Australia and South Korea. We may selectively pursue commercial expansion outside the U.S., with a priority on markets where we see significant potential growth opportunities. New approvals may also be sought in large cataract markets with more complex regulatory environments.

FDA clinical studies

In July 2016, we completed our FDA Phase 3 pivotal randomized clinical study of 600 subjects, designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of performing light treatments to correct postoperative spherical and cylindrical refractive error. In this study, 391 subjects had the LAL implanted in one eye and the results were compared at the six-month postoperative visit against 193 subjects with a monofocal control IOL implanted in one eye. The LAL met all primary effectiveness endpoints and was approved by the FDA on November 22, 2017 as the first commercially available adjustable IOL. In the study, 70.1% of LAL subjects achieved monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better compared to 36.3% of the eyes implanted with the monofocal control IOL. In addition to being statistically significantly better than the control IOL, the observed rate of eyes with 20/20 or better uncorrected distance visual acuity was the highest reported for any approved intraocular lens and approximately twice what was observed by the two most popular astigmatism-correcting IOLs (38.4% by Alcon’s Acrysof Toric, and 43.6% by J&J’s Tecnis Toric) in similar patient populations in the pivotal studies that led to their approvals by the FDA. Additionally, LAL patients reported a low rate of glare or halo, visual side effects that are frequently reported with premium IOLs.

In 2024, we completed a 500-eye prospective, randomized, controlled multi-center Post Approval Study (“PAS”), which was a requirement of our Premarket Approval (“PMA”). As of February 7th, 2025, the PAS was accepted by the FDA fulfilling our Post Approval Study requirements.” The PAS subjects were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the LAL or a monofocal IOL. Study subjects were followed for six months. The study compared effectiveness and safety of the LAL and a monofocal IOL. 335 eyes were implanted with the LAL and 165 eyes with a monofocal control IOL. Both safety endpoints were met. Regarding effectiveness, the monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/20 or better in 82.5% of LAL eyes compared to 50.6% of control eyes. The study found that the odds of achieving manifest refraction cylinder of 0.50 D or less were more than 20 times greater for the LAL group than the control group at six months.

Sales and marketing

Our commercial efforts are designed to create a “razor and razor blade” business model by building a sizable LDD installed base to enable ongoing growth in LAL procedure volumes. New customer contracts typically include sale of the LDD, sale of LALs and an LAL consignment agreement. Once the LDD is installed, our clinical specialists work closely with the practice’s doctors, technicians and staff members to ensure that they are fully trained, proficient LAL providers. Our LAL account managers oversee this process and engage with practices on an ongoing basis to assist with patient awareness and education programs, development of efficient patient flow processes and other initiatives. To achieve broad awareness of the RxSight

9

system among cataract surgeons, we also conduct various marketing programs, including promotions at industry and society conferences, podium presentations, social media, and educational webinars focused on the differentiated benefits of our RxSight system.

Our RxSight system has regulatory approval in the U.S., Europe, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, Australia and South Korea. Beyond these, we have begun sales in select foreign jurisdictions where permitted.

Research and development

Our research and development activities are focused on programs that improve clinical outcomes, improve customer experience, expand our indications for use, reduce manufacturing costs and lifecycle management. Since our initial FDA approval in November 2017 through December 31, 2025, we have received approximately 40 supplemental approvals that advance these objectives.

In January 2023, the FDA approved our PMA supplement for our compact LDD with various modifications, and it was approved in Canada in September 2024, and in South Korea in February 2025. Research and development expenses were $38.5 million, $34.4 million and $29.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2025, 2024 and 2023, respectively.

Manufacturing and supply

We currently manufacture, assemble, test, and ship our LAL and LDD in Aliso Viejo, California at our campus of five facilities which consist of an aggregate of approximately 150,000 total square feet. We have intentionally pursued a vertically integrated manufacturing strategy offering critical advantages, including control over our product quality and rapid product iteration using strong R&D and quality groups. We believe our current manufacturing capacity is sufficient to meet our current expected demand for at least the next 12 months.

We are registered with the FDA as a medical device manufacturer and are licensed by the State of California to manufacture and distribute our medical devices. We are required to manufacture our products in compliance with the FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation (“QMSR”) (21 CFR Part 820 incorporating ISO 13485:2016), replacing the former Quality System Regulation. The FDA enforces the QSR through periodic inspections and may also inspect the facilities of our suppliers. All of our current Aliso Viejo, California facilities have been registered with the FDA, the State of California, and the European Notified Body (British Standards Institution) for the manufacture and distribution of medical devices.

We have received International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) 13485:2016 certification for our quality management system. ISO certification generally includes recertification audits every third year, scheduled annual surveillance audits and periodic unannounced audits. We have also received quality system certification to the Medical Device Single Audit Program (“MDSAP”) to cover the jurisdictions of U.S., Canada, Brazil, Japan, and Australia from the British Standards Institution. The MDSAP certification follows the ISO 13485:2016 certification schedule. The most recent recertification and surveillance audit was conducted in November 2024 and the most recent unannounced audit was conducted in November 2025.

The LAL is a silicone intraocular lens made from a proprietary blend of custom chemical components. Chemical component vendors produce the raw materials, which we inspect, blend, further purify, and process, and formulate into uncured silicone blend. Using this uncured silicone, we mold the lens in one of our three ISO Class 7 clean rooms. After curing, the molded lens is inspected and packaged and then sent to a third-party ethylene oxide sterilization vendor. After sterilization, the lens is returned to us for final inspection, packaging, and shipment to customers.

Our LDD is a UV projector medical device, which consists of an anterior segment biomicroscope, computer controllers for performing light treatments, and a biometrically designed patient interface and table. The optics are bonded into their mounts using epoxies, which are then oven cured, and are assembled into the main optical housing. The completed optical head is integrated into the table, along with a computer, power supplies and other electro-mechanical parts. We outsource the cables and circuit boards used in the LDD to certified specialty contract manufacturers. The fully assembled LDD is put through an electrical safety and final acceptance test process, and then reviewed by quality control, packaged and shipped directly to our customers for installation.

We use a combination of internally manufactured and externally sourced components to produce the LAL and LDD. We rely on third parties, including single and sole source suppliers, to manufacture certain components and subcomponents of our products that include off-the-shelf chemical, materials, microchips integrated into printed circuit boards and cables, sub-assemblies, and custom parts that are provided by qualified and approved suppliers. We also employ a third-party sterilization vendor. We have long-term supply agreements with (or guaranteed commitments from) the majority of our sole source, critical suppliers. We utilize purchase orders or blanket orders covering the medium term of 12–18 months for the majority of our supplier base. While we depend on our suppliers to provide us and our customers with materials in a timely manner that meet our and their quality, quantity and cost requirements, vendors will miss delivery dates, extend delivery dates or in some

10

circumstances cancel purchase orders because these suppliers may encounter problems during manufacturing for a variety of reasons, any of which could delay or impede their ability to meet our demand. The expansion of global lead times has resulted in the lack of availability of raw materials, including semiconductors, computers, monitors electronic parts, metals, packaging, adhesives, chemicals, resins and subcontract painted components. Certain suppliers have passed on higher prices, surcharges and expedited shipping fees to defray the higher commodity prices they are paying due to short supply, pushed out delivery dates, and tariffs. Additionally, due to these supply chain constraints we will identify and qualify new vendors or substitute components which requires testing, validations and documentation adding to internal costs and diverting engineering resources from other projects. While we have taken measures to mitigate business continuity risk, including increasing standard lead times, payment of expedite fees, issuance of a limited number of non-cancelable purchase orders, advance delivery of critical components ahead of normal delivery dates and second sourcing, our suppliers may cease producing the components we purchase from them or otherwise decide to cease doing business with us.

Our suppliers are evaluated, qualified, and approved as part of our supplier quality program, which includes verification and monitoring procedures to ensure that our suppliers comply with FDA and ISO standards, as well as our own specifications and requirements. We inspect and verify externally sourced components under strict processes supported by internal policies and procedures. We maintain a rigorous change control policy to assure that no product or process changes are implemented without our prior review and approval.

Third-party reimbursement and patient billing

Dual aspect payment model

In the U.S., the CMS has determined that the additional refractive correction provided by astigmatism correcting and presbyopia correcting (premium) IOLs is not a covered benefit. As described in two CMS rulings (CMS 05-01 and CMS 1536-R), premium IOLs have both a covered and non-covered aspect, providing the framework for the “dual-aspect payment model.” In effect since 2005, this model means that CMS does not reimburse the physician or the facility for the additional costs associated with a premium IOL, while still covering the cost of the conventional IOL procedure. Instead, the patient selecting a premium IOL is responsible for the additional charges from the physician and from the facility that exceed the regular charges for insertion of a conventional IOL that are submitted to CMS by each of these providers. As of 2017, CMS has recognized the LAL as an astigmatism correcting (premium) IOL, making it eligible for the dual aspect payment model. Most commercial payers mirror the Medicare rulings, but this can vary by payor.

Procedure coding and payment

In the U.S., we primarily sell our LAL products to ambulatory surgical centers (“ASCs”) and occasionally to hospitals. These customers in turn bill various third-party payors, such as commercial payors and state and government payors, as well as patients and doctors directly for the services provided to each patient.

Third-party payors require physicians and hospitals to identify the service for which they are seeking reimbursement by using Current Procedural Terminology, or CPT, codes, which are created and maintained by the American Medical Association, or AMA. For cataract surgery, the most common specific CPT codes are 66984 (Cataract surgery with IOL, on stage) and 66982 (Cataract surgery, complex). The facility fees associated with these codes include payment for a conventional IOL of up to $150. A specific HCPCS code is listed on the CMS claim by the facility to indicate use of premium IOL for tracking purposes only (V2787 or V2788 for astigmatism-correcting or presbyopia-correction function of IOL, respectively). Similarly, the physician includes HCPCS code A9270 (non-covered item or service) on their claim to Medicare (or another third party) to indicate charges for extended care related to the correction of refractive error.

While an Advanced Beneficiary Notice (“ABN”) or Notice of Exclusion from Medicare Benefits (“NEMB”) is not required, most providers issue an ABN or NEMB to alert patients that CMS (or non-Medicare payers) do not cover the additional charges associated with a premium IOL and to get the patient’s agreement to pay these charges. Patients are then billed directly by the physician and the ASC for these charges. In some cases, the physician bills the patient exclusively and then reimburses the ASC for the additional cost of the premium IOL.

Commercial payor and government program coverage

While the dual aspect payment model has been in use for over 15 years, the extent to which this model will be used by non-government third-party payors, such as commercial insurance, and managed healthcare organizations may vary. One third-party payor’s decision does not ensure that other payors will also follow this model. As a result, the coverage determination process can require manufacturers to provide additional support for the use of a product to each payor separately. This can be a time-consuming process, with no assurance that the dual aspect model will be applied consistently.

11

Reimbursement outside of the U.S.

In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems also vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In many countries, analogous determinations to the dual aspect CMS ruling have been made, allowing for partial coverage of the cataract procedure by national health systems, with patients paying out of pocket for refractive services associated with the premium IOL. In other countries, such dual billing is not allowed, forcing patients to pay for the entire cost of the cataract surgery and IOL when a premium IOL is used. In such markets, it may be possible for doctors to charge separately for the cost of light treatments, which are not part of the cataract procedure. This method would require a different billing methodology by us than is currently used in the U.S., where light treatments are included with the purchase of the LAL. There is no assurance that these methodologies will be allowed or that an adequate level of payment will be established, or that the third-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect the ability for manufacturers to sell products profitably.

Intellectual Property, License Agreements and Other Material Agreements

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain, maintain, protect, and enforce our intellectual property rights, including our patent rights, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of others and prevent others from infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating our intellectual property rights. We rely on a combination of patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright and other intellectual property rights and measures to protect the products and technology that we consider important to our business. We also rely on know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position.

Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, pursuing and obtaining patent protection in the U.S. and in jurisdictions outside of the U.S. related to our technology, inventions, improvements and products that are important to the development and implementation of our business. Our patent portfolio covers various aspects of our LDD, LAL and related devices and methods.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, in the U.S., issued patents are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest claimed non-provisional or Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) filing date. In certain instances, a patent term can be adjusted to recapture a portion of delay by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), in examining the patent application (patent term adjustment, or PTA) or extended to account for term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period (patent term extension, or PTE), or both. Additionally, a patent term may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier filed patent. However, the life of the patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. In addition, we cannot provide any assurance that any patents will be issued from our pending or future applications or that any issued patents will adequately protect our current and future products. We also cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our owned or in-licensed patents or whether such claims, if issued, will cover our products, provide sufficient protection from competitors or otherwise provide any competitive advantage. Any issued patents that we may own or in-license in the future may be challenged, invalidated, narrowed, held unenforceable, infringed or circumvented.

As of December 31, 2025, our patent estate is directed to various aspects of our programs and technology, including our LAL and our LDD as well as lens adjustment procedure and other technology. The U.S. and foreign patents issued or pending are estimated to expire from 2026 to 2045, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, and other governmental fees. Further details on certain segments of our patent portfolio, including our owned and exclusively in-licensed issued patents and patent applications, are included below.

•
Our current LAL: Some of the patents directed to our current LAL include, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 10,874,505, which is estimated to expire in 2033, U.S. Pat. No. 11,266,495, which is estimated to expire in 2039 and U.S. Pat. No. 12,102,524, which is estimated to expire in 2039.

•
Our LDD: Some of the patents directed to our LDD include, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 10,864,075, which is estimated to expire in 2038, and U.S. Pat. No. 10,932,864, which is estimated to expire in 2039.

•
Our lens adjustment procedure: Some of the patents directed to our lens adjustment procedure include, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 10,166,731, which is estimated to expire in 2036.

•
Our RxSight system accessories: A patent directed to our RxSight system accessories includes, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 11,083,568, which is estimated to expire in 2037.

Pursuant to the agreement with QAD, Inc. (“QAD”) dated October 29, 2015 (the “QAD Agreement”), we received a nonexclusive, non-transferable, perpetual license to use certain QAD software at the physical location where we install the

12

software. Under the agreement, we purchase such QAD software through individual orders (“Purchase Orders”), and each Purchase Order has a respective payment fee and maintenance fee. We use the software licensed under the QAD agreement for inventory, shipping, receiving, sales order, work order, planning and financial transactions for the business. Maintenance for the software is offered by QAD and available for purchase by us on an annual basis, and such purchase was compulsory for the first year of the agreement. After the first year, maintenance purchased under the agreement automatically renews for successive one-year periods unless terminated by us or QAD 60 days prior to the effective date of any renewal term. Further, we grant QAD audit rights to verify our usage of QAD software, and if following such audit our use of the QAD software is in excess of our license, we are obligated to pay to QAD the amounts necessary to become compliant. QAD provides limited warranties to the software and retains all intellectual property ownership rights in the QAD software including any modifications made by us, however we receive a license to use any modifications made by us. Unless earlier terminated, the term of the QAD agreement is perpetual. Both parties have the right to terminate the agreement for convenience by giving the other party 90 days prior written notice and such termination does not affect the license granted. Either party to the agreement may terminate the agreement with notice, if the other materially breaches the agreement, and the breach is not cured within specified time periods. In addition, either party may terminate if the other party is adjudicated bankrupt or an official is appointed to manage its financial affairs. Upon termination for cause, we must immediately discontinue all use of the software.

We believe that we have certain know-how and trade secrets relating to our technology and current and future products. We rely on trade secrets to protect certain aspects of our technology related to our current and future products. However, trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our trade secrets and know-how, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, service providers, and contractors but these agreements may not provide meaningful protection, and we cannot guarantee that we have executed such agreements with all applicable counterparties. These agreements may also be breached, and we may not have an adequate remedy for any such breach. 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. Although we take steps to protect our trade secrets and know-how, third parties may independently develop or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets and know-how.

For more information regarding risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors-Risks related to Intellectual Property” in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report.

Competition

Competition in the surgical ophthalmology market is intense and is primarily driven by technological innovation and the regulatory approval required to commercialize products in the key markets around the world. The development of new or improved products may make existing products less attractive, reduce them to commodity status or even make them obsolete. We believe the principal competitive factors in our markets include:

•
the quality of patient outcomes, oftentimes measured by visual acuity, and adverse event rates;

•
patient experience, including patient recovery time and level of discomfort;

•
acceptance by treating doctors and referral sources;

•
doctor learning curves and willingness to adopt new technologies;

•
ease-of-use and reliability;

•
economic benefits and cost savings;

•
strength of clinical evidence;

•
effective distribution and marketing to surgeons and potential patients; and

•
product price and qualification for coverage and reimbursement.

From a commercial perspective, we believe our primary competitors in the cataract U.S. IOL market are premium IOL providers, including Alcon and Johnson & Johnson. According to Market Scope, the global cataract IOL market is highly concentrated, with these top two players accounting for approximately 75% of the total U.S. premium cataract surgery market and approximately 70% of the global manufacturer market revenue. Our competitors are significantly larger than us with greater financial, marketing, sales and personnel resources, greater brand recognition and longer operating histories. We believe our ability to compete effectively will be dependent on our ability to build the commercial infrastructure necessary to effectively and cost-efficiently drive awareness of the unique value of our RxSight system.

13

In addition, patients who receive an LAL will be required to wear UV protective glasses until final lock-in which is approximately 4-5 weeks after surgery. They will also be required to return for an additional two to three clinic visits compared to traditional cataract surgery. The additional clinic visits are non-surgical but do require the patient’s eyes to be dilated. Due to these additional requirements, market acceptance of the LAL may be impacted.

The most popular premium IOLs families approved for cataract treatment are toric and multifocal Acrysof and Tecnis IOL models. According to the Market Scope 2025 Premium Cataract Surgery Market Report Alcon and Johnson & Johnson are two of the top IOL manufacturers, with an estimated 2025 revenue share of the world-wide premium IOL market of approximately 45% and 27%, respectively. The Acrysof and Tecnis families of IOLs are available in a monofocal Toric, multifocal Toric and EDOF Toric versions. The Presbyopia-Correcting and Toric versions of these lenses represented over half of all premium multifocal IOLs sold in 2025. The rest of the market is shared between several smaller companies each with under 5% market share. From a technology perspective, we believe the LAL competes with nearly all of the existing IOLs, including conventional, premium astigmatism correcting and premium presbyopia correcting lenses.

Government regulation

Our products and operations are subject to extensive and ongoing regulation by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, (the “FDCA”) and its implementing regulations, as well as other federal, state and local regulatory authorities in the U.S., as well as foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA regulates, among other things, product design and development, pre-clinical and clinical testing, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, storage, record keeping and reporting, clearance or approval, marketing, distribution, promotion, import and export, and post-marketing surveillance in the U.S. to assure the safety and effectiveness of medical products for their intended use.

FDA regulation of medical devices

Unless an exemption applies, each new or significantly modified medical device we seek to commercially distribute in the U.S. will require either a premarket notification to the FDA requesting permission for commercial distribution under Section 510(k) of the FDCA, also referred to as a 510(k) clearance, or approval from the FDA of a PMA application. Both the 510(k) clearance and PMA processes can be resource intensive, expensive, and lengthy, and require payment of significant user fees, unless an exemption is available.

FDA classifies medical devices 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 assurances with respect to safety and effectiveness.

Class I devices are those for which safety and effectiveness can be reasonably assured by adherence to the FDA’s general controls for medical devices, which include compliance with the applicable portions of FDA’s current good manufacturing practices for devices, as reflected in the FDA's QMSR, establishment registration and device listing, reporting of adverse events and malfunctions, and appropriate, truthful and non-misleading labeling and promotional materials. Some Class I devices, also called Class I reserved devices, also require premarket clearance by the FDA through the 510(k) premarket notification process described below. Most Class I products are exempt from the premarket notification requirements.

Class II devices are those that are subject to the FDA’s general controls and any other special controls deemed necessary by the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device. These special controls can include performance standards, patient registries, product-specific FDA guidance documents, special labeling requirements and post-market surveillance. Most Class II devices are subject to premarket review and clearance by the FDA through the 510(k) premarket notification process.

Class III devices include devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risk such as life-supporting or life-sustaining devices, or implantable devices, in addition to those deemed novel and not substantially equivalent following the 510(k) process. Due to the level of risk associated with Class III devices, the FDA’s general controls and special controls alone are insufficient to assure their safety and effectiveness. Devices placed in Class III generally require the submission of a PMA application, demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of the device which must be approved by the FDA prior to marketing, or the receipt of a 510(k) de novo classification. The PMA approval process is generally more costly and time consuming than the 510(k) process. Through the PMA application process, the applicant must submit data and information demonstrating reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use to the FDA’s satisfaction. Accordingly, a PMA application typically includes, but is not limited to, extensive technical information regarding device design and development, pre-clinical and clinical trial data, manufacturing information, labeling and financial disclosure information for the clinical investigators in device studies. The PMA application must provide valid scientific evidence that demonstrates to the FDA’s satisfaction a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use.

If a new medical device does not qualify for the 510(k) premarket notification process because no predicate device to which it is substantially equivalent can be identified, the device is automatically classified into Class III. The Food and Drug

14

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 process. This process 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. 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. 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 and requires PMA or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls cannot be developed.

Obtaining FDA marketing authorization, de novo down-classification, or approval for medical devices is expensive and uncertain, and may take several years, and generally requires significant scientific and clinical data.

Investigational device process

In the U.S., absent certain limited exceptions, human clinical trials intended to support medical device clearance or approval require an IDE application. Some types of studies deemed to present “non-significant risk” are deemed to have an approved IDE once certain requirements are addressed, and IRB approval is obtained. If the device presents a “significant risk” to human health, as defined by the FDA, the sponsor must submit an IDE application to the FDA and obtain IDE approval prior to commencing the human clinical trials. 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 testing protocol is scientifically sound. The IDE application must be approved in advance by the FDA for a specified number of subjects. Generally, clinical trials for a significant risk device may begin once the IDE application is approved by the FDA and the study protocol and informed consent are approved by appropriate institutional review boards for each clinical trial site. There can be no assurance that submission of an IDE will result in the ability to commence clinical trials, and although the FDA’s approval of an IDE allows clinical testing to go forward for a specified number of subjects, it does not bind the FDA to accept the results of the clinical trial as sufficient to prove the product’s safety and effectiveness, even if the clinical trial meets its intended success criteria.

All clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s IDE regulations that govern investigational device labeling, prohibit promotion and specify an array of recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring responsibilities of study sponsors and study investigators. Clinical trials must further comply with the FDA’s good clinical practice regulations for institutional review board approval and for informed consent and other human subject protections. Required records and reports are subject to inspection by the FDA.

The results of clinical testing may be unfavorable, or, even if the intended safety and effectiveness success criteria are achieved, may not be considered sufficient for the FDA to grant marketing approval or clearance of a product. The commencement or completion of any clinical trial may be delayed or halted, or be inadequate to support approval of a PMA application, for numerous reasons, including, but not limited to, the following:

•
The FDA or other regulatory authorities do not approve a clinical trial protocol or a clinical trial, or place a clinical trial on hold;

•
Patients do not enroll in clinical trials at the rate expected;

•
Patients do not comply with trial protocols;

•
Patient follow-up is not at the rate expected;

•
Patients experience adverse events;

•
Patients die during a clinical trial, even though their death may not be related to the products that are part of the clinical trial;

•
Device malfunctions occur with unexpected frequency or potential adverse consequences;

•
Side effects or device malfunctions of similar products already in the market that change the FDA’s view toward approval of new or similar PMAs or result in the imposition of new requirements or testing;

•
Institutional review boards may delay or reject the clinical trial protocol;

15

•
Third-party clinical investigators decline to participate in a trial or do not perform a trial on the anticipated schedule or consistent with the clinical trial protocol, investigator agreement, investigational plan, good clinical practices, the IDE regulations, or other FDA or IRB requirements;

•
Third-party investigators are disqualified by the FDA;

•
We or third-party organizations do not perform data collection, monitoring and analysis in a timely or accurate manner or consistent with the clinical trial protocol or investigational or statistical plans, or otherwise fail to comply with the IDE regulations governing responsibilities, records, and reports of sponsors of clinical investigations;

•
Third-party clinical investigators have significant financial interests related to us or our study such that the FDA deems the study results unreliable, or we or investigators fail to disclose such interests;

•
Regulatory inspections of our clinical trials or manufacturing facilities, which may, among other things, require us to undertake corrective action or suspend or terminate our clinical trials;

•
Changes in government regulations or administrative actions;

•
The interim or final results of the clinical trial are inconclusive or unfavorable as to safety or effectiveness; or

•
The FDA concludes that our trial design is unreliable or inadequate to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

The 510(k) clearance process

Under the 510(k) process, the manufacturer must submit to the FDA a premarket notification, demonstrating that the device is “substantially equivalent,” as defined in the statute, to a legally marketed predicate device.

A predicate device is a legally marketed device that is not subject to premarket approval, i.e., a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976 (pre-amendments device) and for which a PMA is not required, a device that has been reclassified from Class III to Class II or Class I, or a device that was previously found substantially equivalent through the 510(k) process. A device is considered to be substantially equivalent if, with respect to the predicate device, it has the same intended use, and has either (i) the same technological characteristics; or (ii) different technological characteristics, but the information provided in the 510(k) submission demonstrates that the device does not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness than the predicate device. Clinical data is sometimes, but not always, required to support substantial equivalence.

The Medical Device User Fee Amendments sets a performance goal of 90 days for FDA review of a 510(k) submission, but the review time can be delayed if FDA raises questions or requests additional information during the review process. As a practical matter, clearance often takes longer, and clearance is never assured. Thus, as a practical matter, clearance often takes longer than 90 days. Although many 510(k) premarket notifications are cleared without clinical data, the FDA may require further information, including clinical data, to make a determination regarding substantial equivalence, which may significantly prolong the review process. If the FDA agrees that the device is substantially equivalent, it will grant clearance to commercially market the device.

If the FDA determines that the device is not “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device, or if the device is automatically classified into Class III, the device sponsor must then fulfill the much more rigorous premarketing requirements of the PMA approval process, or seek reclassification of the device through the de novo process. A manufacturer can also submit a petition for direct de novo review if the manufacturer is unable to identify an appropriate predicate device and the new device or new use of the device presents a moderate or low risk.

Medical devices can only be marketed for the indications for which they are cleared or approved. After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a new or major change in its intended use, will require a new 510(k) clearance or, depending on the modification, could require a PMA application or de novo classification. The determination as to whether or not a modification constitutes such a change is initially left to the manufacturer using available FDA guidance; however, the FDA may review this determination to evaluate the regulatory status of the modified product at any time and may require the manufacturer to cease marketing and recall the modified device until new 510(k) clearance or PMA approval is obtained. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s determination regarding whether a new premarket submission is required for the modification of an existing device, the FDA can require the manufacturer to cease marketing and/or recall the modified device until 510(k) clearance or approval of a PMA application is obtained. The manufacturer may also be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties.

16

The PMA approval process

Following receipt of a PMA application, the FDA conducts an administrative review to determine whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. If it is not, the agency will refuse to file the PMA. If it is, the FDA will accept the application for filing and begin the substantive review. The FDA, by statute and by regulation, has 180 days to review a filed PMA application, although the review of an application more often occurs over a significantly longer period of time. During this review period, the FDA may request additional information or clarification of information already provided, and the FDA may issue a major deficiency letter to the applicant, requesting the applicant’s response to deficiencies communicated by the FDA. The FDA considers a PMA or PMA supplement to have been voluntarily withdrawn if an applicant fails to respond to an FDA request for information (e.g., major deficiency letter) within a total of 360 days. Before approving or denying a PMA, an FDA advisory committee may review the PMA at a public meeting and provide the FDA with the committee’s recommendation on whether the FDA should approve the submission, approve it with specific conditions, or not approve it. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Prior to approval of a PMA, the FDA may conduct inspections of the clinical trial data and clinical trial sites, as well as inspections of the manufacturing facility and processes. Overall, the FDA review of a PMA application generally takes between one and three years but may take significantly longer. The FDA can delay, limit or deny approval of a PMA application for many reasons, including:

•
The device may not be shown safe or effective to the FDA’s satisfaction;

•
The data from pre-clinical studies and/or clinical trials may be found unreliable or insufficient to support approval;

•
The manufacturing process or facilities may not meet applicable requirements; and

•
Changes in FDA approval policies or adoption of new regulations may require additional data.

If the FDA evaluation of a PMA is favorable, the FDA will issue either an approval letter, or an approvable letter, the latter of which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the PMA. When and if those conditions have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the FDA, the agency will issue a PMA approval letter authorizing commercial marketing of the device, subject to the conditions of approval and the limitations established in the approval letter. If the FDA’s evaluation of a PMA application or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. The FDA also may determine that additional tests or clinical trials are necessary, in which case the PMA approval may be delayed for several months or years while the clinical trials are conducted and data is submitted in an amendment to the PMA, or the PMA is withdrawn and resubmitted when the data are available. The PMA process can be expensive, uncertain and lengthy and a number of devices for which the FDA approval has been sought by other companies have never been approved by the FDA for marketing.

New PMA applications or PMA supplements are required for modification to the manufacturing process, equipment or facility, quality control procedures, sterilization, packaging, expiration date, labeling, device specifications, ingredients, materials or design of a device that has been approved through the PMA process. PMA supplements often require submission of the same type of information as an initial PMA application, except that the supplement is limited to information needed to support any changes from the device covered by the approved PMA application and may or may not require as extensive technical or clinical data or the convening of an advisory panel, depending on the nature of the proposed change.

In approving a PMA application, as a condition of approval, the FDA may also require some form of post-approval study or post-market surveillance, whereby the applicant conducts a follow-up study or follows certain patient groups for a number of years and makes periodic reports to the FDA on the clinical status of those patients when necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional or longer term safety and effectiveness data for the device. The FDA may also require post-market surveillance for certain devices cleared under a 510(k) notification, such as implants or life-supporting or life-sustaining devices used outside a device user facility. The FDA may also approve a PMA application with other post-approval conditions intended to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, such as, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale, distribution and use. Significant modifications to the manufacturing process, labeling and design for a device which has received approval through the PMA process may require submission of a new PMA application or PMA supplement prior to marketing.

Ongoing regulation by the FDA

Even after the FDA permits a device to be marketed, numerous regulatory requirements apply, including but not limited to:

•
establishment registration and device listing;

17

•
the QMSR, which went into effect in February 2026, which requires manufacturers, including third-party manufacturers, to follow stringent design, testing, production, control, supplier/contractor selection, complaint handling, documentation, and other quality assurance procedures during the manufacturing process;

•
labeling regulations, advertising and promotion requirements, restrictions on sale distribution or use of a device, each including the FDA general prohibition against the promotion of products for any uses other than those authorized by the FDA, which are commonly known as “off label” uses;

•
the Medical Device Reporting (“MDR”) regulation, which requires that manufactures report to the FDA if their device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or if their device malfunctioned and the device or a similar device marketed by the manufacturer would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur;

•
medical device corrections and removal reporting regulations, which require that manufactures report to the FDA field corrections or removals if undertaken to reduce a risk to health posed by a device or to remedy a violation of the FDCA Act that may present a risk to health;

•
recall requirements, including a mandatory recall if there is a reasonable probability that the device would cause serious adverse health consequences or death;

•
an order of repair, replacement or refund;

•
device tracking requirements; and

•
post market study and surveillance requirements.

After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any modification 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) or possibly a PMA. The FDA requires each manufacturer to make this determination initially, but the FDA can review any such decision and can disagree with a manufacturer’s determination. If the FDA disagrees with our determination not to seek a new 510(k) clearance, the FDA may retroactively require us to seek 510(k) clearance or possibly a PMA. The FDA could also require us to cease marketing and distribution and/or recall the modified device until 510(k) clearance or a PMA is obtained. Also, in these circumstances, we may be subject to significant regulatory fines and penalties.

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 application 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 application, 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 PMA applications.

FDA regulations require us to register as a medical device manufacturer with the FDA. Additionally, some states also require medical device manufacturers and/or distributors doing business within the state to register with the state or apply for a state license, which could subject our facility to state inspection as well as FDA inspection on a routine basis for compliance with the FDA's QMSR and any applicable state requirements. Further, the FDA requires us to comply with various FDA regulations regarding labeling. 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:

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

•
customer notifications, voluntary or mandatory recall or seizure of our products;

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

•
delay in processing, clearing or approving submissions or applications for new products or modifications to existing products;

•
FDA refusal to issue certificates to foreign governments needed to export products for sale in other countries;

•
suspension or withdrawal of FDA approvals or clearances that have already been granted; and

•
criminal prosecution.

18

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.

Our facilities, records and manufacturing processes are subject to periodic unscheduled inspections by the FDA. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. medical device regulatory requirements could result in, among other things, warning letters, untitled letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees, civil penalties, unanticipated expenditures, repairs, replacements, refunds, recalls or seizures of products, operating restrictions, total or partial suspension of production, the FDA’s refusal to issue certificates to foreign governments needed to export products for sale in other countries, the FDA’s refusal to grant future premarket clearances or approvals, withdrawals or suspensions of current product clearances or approvals and criminal prosecution.

When the FDA conducts an inspection, the inspectors will identify any deficiencies they believe exist in the form of a notice of inspectional observations, or Form FDA 483. If we receive a notice of inspectional observations or deficiencies from the FDA following an inspection, we would be required to respond in writing, and would be required to undertake corrective and/or preventive or other actions in order to address the FDA’s or other regulators’ concerns. Failure to address the FDA’s concerns may result in the issuance of a warning letter or other enforcement or administrative actions.

International medical device premarket authorization process

The European Union has established a comprehensive regulatory framework governing the design, manufacture, clinical investigation, labeling, and post-market surveillance of medical devices. Our products are regulated in the European Union under Regulation (EU) 2017/745, commonly referred to as the EU Medical Devices Regulation (“EU MDR”). Medical devices are classified under the EU MDR based on intended use and risk profile, with conformity assessment requirements determined by the applicable classification. Our products have completed the required conformity assessment procedures and are fully certified under the EU MDR, permitting the application of the CE mark. The CE mark demonstrates conformity with applicable regulatory requirements and allows for commercialization throughout the European Union without the need for additional national approvals. Certification is issued by a designated Notified Body and is subject to ongoing compliance with the EU MDR and applicable ISO 13485 quality system requirements.

Regulatory oversight of medical devices in the European Union is carried out by national authorities, referred to as Competent Authorities, in coordination with Notified Bodies. The Company is subject to periodic surveillance and re-certification audits by its Notified Body to verify continued compliance with regulatory and quality system requirements, including those applicable to clinical trials sponsored by the Company. In addition to EU MDR certification, the Company has obtained UK Conformity Assessed (UKCA) certification for products marketed in Great Britain and has completed medical device registration in Switzerland in accordance with applicable Swiss regulatory requirements. The Company also maintains certification under the Medical Device Single Audit Program (“MDSAP”), covering the jurisdictions of the U.S., Canada, Japan, Brazil, and Australia, which allows a single audit to satisfy quality system requirements across these markets. All regulatory registrations and certifications required as a result of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union and Switzerland’s regulatory changes have been completed and are maintained in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements

Other U.S. regulatory matters

Medical device companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product clearance or approval are subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the U.S. in addition to the FDA, including the CMS, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and state and local governments. For example, in the U.S., sales, marketing and scientific and educational programs also must comply with state and federal fraud and abuse, anti-kickback false claims, transparency, government price reporting, anti-corruption, and health information privacy and security laws and regulations. Internationally, other governments also impose regulations in connection with their healthcare reimbursement programs and the delivery of healthcare items and services.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory and regulatory exemptions or safe harbors, it is possible that some of our activities, such as stock-option compensation paid to doctors that have entered into consulting agreements with us, could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. The growth of our business and sales organization and our expansion outside of the U.S. may increase the potential of violating these laws or our internal policies and procedures. The risk of our being found in violation of these or other laws and regulations is further increased by the fact that many have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to various interpretations. Any action brought against us for violations of these laws or regulations, even successfully defended, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Also, we may be

19

subject to private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers on behalf of the federal or state governments. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal, state and foreign laws described above or any other current or future fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, injunctions, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts, and we could be required to curtail or cease our operations. Any of the foregoing consequences could seriously harm our business and our financial results.

U.S. health care reform

Changes in healthcare policy could increase our costs and subject us to additional regulatory requirements that may interrupt commercialization of our current and future solutions. Current and future legislative proposals to further reform healthcare or reduce healthcare costs may limit coverage for the procedures associated with the use of our products or result in lower reimbursement for those procedures. The cost containment measures that payers and providers are instituting and the effect of any healthcare reform initiative implemented in the future could significantly reduce our revenues from the sale of our products. Changes in healthcare policy, including changes in the implementation or the repeal of the ACA in the U.S., could increase our costs, decrease our revenue and impact sales of and reimbursement and coverage for our current and future products. Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. In particular, on December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. On March 2, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case and held oral arguments in November 2020. In June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Texas and other challengers had no legal standing to challenge the ACA, dismissing the case on procedural grounds without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. It is unclear how this Supreme Court decision, future litigation, and healthcare measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA and our business. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year and reduced payments to several types of Medicare providers, which will remain in effect through 2032, unless additional action is taken by Congress. Moreover, there recently has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation designed, among other things, to bring more transparency to product pricing. Complying with any new legislation or reversing changes implemented under the ACA could be time-intensive and expensive, resulting in a material adverse effect on our business.

The U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Among policy makers and payors in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. Current and future legislative proposals to further reform healthcare or reduce healthcare costs may limit coverage of or lower reimbursement for the procedures associated with the use of our products. The cost containment measures that payors and providers are instituting and the effect of any healthcare reform initiative implemented in the future could impact our revenue from the sale of our products.

We believe that there will continue to be proposals by legislators at both the federal and state levels, regulators and third-party payors to reduce costs while expanding individual healthcare benefits. Certain of these changes could impose additional limitations on the rates we will be able to charge for our current and future products or the amounts of reimbursement available for our current and future products from governmental agencies or third-party payors. Current and future healthcare reform legislation and policies could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Data privacy and security

Medical device companies may be subject to foreign and U.S. federal and state health information privacy, data protection, security and data breach notification laws, which may govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information.

HIPAA imposes privacy, security and breach reporting obligations with respect to individually identifiable health information upon “covered entities” (health plans, health care clearinghouses and certain health care providers), and their respective “business associates,” individuals or entities that create, received, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HIPAA mandates the reporting of certain breaches of health information to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), affected individuals and if the breach is large

20

enough, the media. Entities that are found to be in violation of HIPAA as the result of a breach of unsecured protected health information, or PHI, a complaint about privacy practices or an audit by HHS, may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative fines and penalties and/or additional reporting and oversight obligations if required to enter into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with HHS to settle allegations of HIPAA non-compliance.

Even when HIPAA does not apply, failing to take appropriate steps to keep personal information secure may constitute a violation of laws or unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C § 45(a). The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of personal information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Personally identifiable health information is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards. The FTC’s guidance for appropriately securing consumers’ personal information is similar to what is required by the HIPAA Security Rule.

In addition, certain state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Any actual or perceived failure to comply with these laws can result in private claims, demands and litigation, regulatory investigations and other proceedings, and the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and other relief. For example, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, (“CCPA”), which went into effect January 1, 2020. The CCPA, among other things, created new data privacy obligations for covered companies and provided new privacy rights to California residents, including the right to opt out of certain disclosures of their information. The CCPA also created a private right of action with statutory damages for certain data breaches, thereby potentially increasing risks associated with a data breach.

Additionally, in November 2020, California voters passed the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”). The CPRA, which became effective January 1, 2023, created additional obligations with respect to certain data relating to consumers, significantly expands the CCPA, including by introducing additional obligations such as data minimization and storage limitations, granting additional rights to consumers, such as correction of personal information and additional opt-out rights, and creates a new entity, the California Privacy Protection Agency, to implement and enforce the law. The CCPA and CPRA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. In addition to the CCPA, numerous other states’ legislatures have passed or are considering similar laws that will require ongoing compliance efforts and investment.

The EU also has laws and regulations dealing with the collection, use and processing of personal data obtained from individuals in the EU, including the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. These laws and regulations are often more restrictive than those in the U.S. and restrict transfers of personal data to the U.S. unless certain requirements are met. The GDPR provides that EU member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of genetic, biometric or health data, which could limit our ability to use and share personal data or could cause our costs to increase, and harm our business and financial condition. Further, the United Kingdom has adopted the UK General Data Protection Regulation and UK Data Protection Act of 2018, which retains the GDPR in the United Kingdom’s national law and provides for a penalty structure similar to the GDPR. Because the interpretation and application of laws, regulations, standards and other obligations relating to privacy, data protection and security are still uncertain, it is possible that these laws, regulations, standards and other obligations may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our data processing practices and policies. If our practices are not consistent, or are viewed as not consistent, with changes in laws, regulations and standards or the interpretations or applications of existing laws, regulations and standards, we may also become subject to fines, audits, inquiries, whistleblower complaints, adverse media coverage, investigations, lawsuits, loss of export privileges, severe criminal or civil sanction or other penalties.

Employees and human capital

As of December 31, 2025, we had 461 full-time employees. All of our employees are full-time and none of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees, advisors and consultants. The principal purposes of our equity and cash incentive plans are to attract, retain and reward personnel through the granting of stock-based and cash-based compensation awards, in order to increase stockholder value and the success of our company by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.

Corporate information

We were incorporated in California on March 5, 1997 as Calhoun Vision, Inc. and changed our name to RxSight, Inc. in October 2016. We reincorporated in Delaware on July 6, 2021. Our principal executive offices are located at 100 Columbia, Aliso Viejo, California 92656. Our telephone number is (949) 521-7830. We maintain a website at www.rxsight.com.

21

Information contained on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any other filings we make with the SEC.

Available Information

Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and other filings with the SEC, and all amendments to these filings, can be obtained free of charge from our website at www.rxsight.com following our filing of any of these reports with the SEC. The SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov. The contents of these and other websites referenced throughout the filing are not incorporated and do not constitute a part of this filing. Further, the Company’s references to the URLs for these websites are intended to be inactive textual references only.

We have used, and intend to continue to use, our investor relations website, press releases, public conference calls, and webcasts to disclose material non-public information and to comply with our disclosure obligations under Regulation FD.