EKSO BIONICS HOLDINGS, INC. - Annual Report: 2015 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015

OR

Commission File No. 000-55442

Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

1414 Harbour Way South, Suite 1201

Richmond, California 94804

(Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)

Registrants' telephone number, including area code: (510) 984-1761

Securities registered pursuant to section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes ¨ No x

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes ¨ No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x  No ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer   ¨      Accelerated filer  x      Non-accelerated filer  ¨      Smaller Reporting Company  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).   Yes ¨      No x

The aggregate market value of the registrant's common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $82,962,801 based on the last sale price for such stock on June 30, 2015, the last business day of the registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

As of March 1, 2016 the registrant had 108,555,641 outstanding shares of common stock.

Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

For the Year Ended December 31, 2015

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) contains forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, in the sections captioned “Business,” “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and elsewhere. Any and all statements contained in this Report that are not statements of historical fact may be deemed forward-looking statements. Terms such as “may,” “might,” “would,” “should,” “could,” “project,” “estimate,” “pro-forma,” “predict,” “potential,” “strategy,” “anticipate,” “attempt,” “develop,” “plan,” “help,” “believe,” “continue,” “intend,” “expect,” “future,” and terms of similar import (including the negative of any of the foregoing) may be intended to identify forward-looking statements. However, not all forward-looking statements may contain one or more of these identifying terms. Forward-looking statements in this Report may include, without limitation, statements regarding (i) the plans and objectives of management for future operations, including plans or objectives relating to the design, development and commercialization of human exoskeletons, (ii) a projection of income (including income/loss), earnings (including earnings/loss) per share, capital expenditures, dividends, capital structure or other financial items, (iii) our future financial performance, including any such statement contained in a discussion and analysis of financial condition by management or in the results of operations included pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), (iv) our beliefs regarding the potential commercial opportunity for exoskeleton technology in general and our exoskeleton products in particular, (v) our beliefs regarding potential clinical and other health benefits of our medical devices, and (vi) the assumptions underlying or relating to any statement described in points (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) above.

The forward-looking statements are not meant to predict or guarantee actual results, performance, events or circumstances and may not be realized because they are based upon our current projections, plans, objectives, beliefs, expectations, estimates and assumptions and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties and other influences, many of which we have no control over. Actual results and the timing of certain events and circumstances may differ materially from those described by the forward-looking statements as a result of these risks and uncertainties. Factors that may influence or contribute to the inaccuracy of the forward-looking statements or cause actual results to differ materially from expected or desired results may include, without limitation, our inability to obtain adequate financing, the significant length of time and resources associated with the development of our products and related insufficient cash flows and resulting illiquidity, our inability to expand our business, significant government regulation of medical devices and the healthcare industry, the results of clinical studies or trials, lack of product diversification, volatility in the price of our raw materials, existing or increased competition, results of arbitration and litigation, stock volatility and illiquidity, and our failure to implement our business plans or strategies. A description of some of the risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those described by the forward-looking statements in this Report appears in the section captioned “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Report.

Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements because of the risks and uncertainties related to them and to the risk factors. We disclaim any obligation to update the forward-looking statements contained in this Report to reflect any new information or future events or circumstances or otherwise.

Readers should read this Report in conjunction with the discussion under the caption “Risk Factors,” our financial statements and the related notes thereto in this Report, and other documents which we may file from time to time with the SEC.

Notes regarding references to Ekso Bionics

In this Report, the “Company”, “we”, “its” and “our” refers to Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, and “Ekso Bionics” refers to Ekso Bionics, Inc. prior to the January 15, 2014 merger of our wholly-owned subsidiary, Ekso Acquisition Corp., with and into Ekso Bionics, Inc. (the “Merger”). Ekso Bionics was the surviving corporation in the Merger and became our wholly-owned subsidiary, and all of the outstanding Ekso Bionics stock was converted into shares of our common stock. Ekso® , Ekso GT^TM, Variable Assist^TM and HULC® are registered and unregistered trademarks of the Company. All other trademarks that may appear in this report are the property of their respective owners.

PART I

Overview

Ekso Bionics designs, develops and sells exoskeletons that have applications in healthcare, industrial, military, and consumer markets. Our exoskeleton systems are worn over the user’s clothing to enhance human strength, endurance and mobility. These systems serve multiple markets and can be used both by able-bodied users as well as by persons with physical disabilities. We or our partners have sold, rented or leased devices that (a) enable individuals with neurological conditions affecting gait (for example, spinal cord injury or stroke) to rehabilitate and to walk again; (b) allow industrial workers to perform heavy duty work for extended periods; and (c) permit soldiers to carry heavy loads for long distances while mitigating lower back, knee, and ankle injuries.

We believe the commercial opportunity for exoskeleton systems is accelerating as a result of recent advancements in material technologies, electronic and electrical engineering, control technologies, and sensor and software development. Taken individually, many of these advancements have become ubiquitous in peoples’ everyday lives. At the Company, we believe we have learned how to integrate these existing technologies and wrap the result around a human being efficiently, elegantly and safely, supported by an industry leading intellectual property portfolio. We further believe we can do so across a broad spectrum of applications, from persons with lower limb paralysis to able-bodied users.

While we believe advancements in technology will continue driving commercial interest in and further development of exoskeleton systems, we also recognize that we are in the early stages of development of exoskeleton capabilities. In order to advance the commercialization of our exoskeleton technology, we intend to focus our efforts in the upcoming quarters on the following key initiatives:

Rehabilitation Robotics

Today, our focus is on rehabilitation robotics. We are leveraging our patented exoskeleton technology to develop and market products intended to enable patients with some form of lower limb paralysis to rehabilitate earlier and with better outcomes than current standard of care.

Ekso GT

Our current product, the Ekso GT, is a wearable bionic suit that allows our hospital and rehabilitation customers to provide in-patients and out-patients with spinal cord injury (“SCI”) and hemiplegia due to stroke the ability to stand and walk over ground with a full weight-bearing, reciprocal gait using a cane, crutches or a walker under the supervision of a physical therapist. Walking is achieved by a user shifting their body to activate sensors in the device which in turn initiate steps. Battery-powered motors drive the legs, detecting the deficient neuromuscular function and providing that level of assist for a user to complete their step. Users can expect to walk with aid from the device the first time they put on the Ekso exoskeleton (after passing an assessment). Physical therapists can transfer patients to or from their wheelchair and don or remove the Ekso in less than five minutes.

The Ekso GT incorporates Variable Assist^TM, our proprietary, adaptive or “smart” software that detects a user’s level of motor loss and dynamically provides 0-100% power to either side of the body. Variable Assist can promote a greater number of high-quality steps in a short time period and support the early re-learning of correct step patterns and weight shifts, potentially mitigating compensatory behaviors. Variable Assist also has allowed our customers to significantly expand the spectrum of patients that can potentially benefit from robotic rehabilitation.

Another important feature of our Ekso GT is its Ekso Pulse system, a real-time data capture program. Ekso Pulse gathers and transmits statistics and device information during Ekso walking sessions. This information can be used to track patient progression and to monitor device utilization. The Ekso records data such as steps, speed, step size, and other settings along with all error logs and operating parameters. Data is sent securely to our servers where it is available for customers to view, filter, and export through a secure web portal. This feature enables more thorough patient care while reducing manual data entry. It also enables us to provide a higher level of service through early identification and thorough reporting of device errors, saving customers the time and expense of unnecessary on-site visits.

The Ekso GT is used by customers in both in-patient and out-patient settings. Our customers believe that for patients with some motor ability intact (for example, after a stroke or an incomplete SCI), the Ekso exoskeleton offers unique benefits to help therapists teach proper step patterns and weight shifts, allowing patients potentially to mobilize earlier and ultimately to walk again. By allowing individuals to stand and walk in a full weight-bearing setting, early clinical evidence is also beginning to show that the Ekso exoskeleton may offer potential healthcare benefits (including for patients with complete SCI) such as reducing post-injury medical costs through reduction in secondary complications such as pressure sores, urinary tract infections, bowel problems, pneumonia and other respiratory issues, bone loss/osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease and psychological disorders.

As of December 31, 2015, the Company had recorded over 37 million steps taken in its Ekso exoskeletons in over 30,000 patient sessions, including over 22 million steps in 2015 alone. The Company has now shipped over 170 units to over 120 rehabilitation facilities or customers worldwide. At December 31, 2015, there were 21 multi-unit customers. The number of units utilized at a center varies from one to five, and is driven by the number of beds and rehabilitation sessions a hospital can offer and that hospital’s adoption of robotics within its rehabilitation protocols.

Market Overview

The primary market for our Ekso GT is rehabilitation clinics with significant stroke and SCI populations. In the U.S. there are about 5.9 million stroke and SCI rehabilitation sessions conducted annually on about 680,000 stroke and SCI patients at approximately 16,900 facilities. Global estimates for stroke and SCI populations are more than double those in the U.S.

Due to the chronic nature of the conditions resulting in lower limb impairment, we believe these diagnoses have an enormous clinical and economic impact on both people with the conditions and the healthcare system. According to the American Heart Association, in the U.S. there are approximately 795,000 strokes per year with approximately 7 million people living who have suffered from a stroke. Direct and indirect costs associated with those who have suffered a stroke total approximately $60 billion annually. Similarly, according to the National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center, in the U.S. there are approximately 12,500 incidences of SCI per year with approximately 275,000 people living with SCI. Direct and indirect costs associated with those who have suffered SCI total approximately $18.5 billion annually.

While the market opportunity for robotic exoskeleton rehabilitation may be large, we also recognize that the path for medical devices to become standard of care is long and challenging. We believe our ability to accelerate adoption will also be based, in part, on our ability to build on our and our partners’ early efforts: (i) to expand clinical evidence and (ii) to drive toward standard of care. We are already seeing customers appreciate that one way for stroke patients at in-patient facilities to receive the recommended amount of rehabilitation per guidelines is by using an Ekso GT, the only device currently in the market that has the versatility to provide an over-ground gait training intervention that is task-specific, high intensity and allows for a margin of error, across the continuum of care.

Clinical Evidence and Reimbursement

Many of our early clinical customers have undertaken research to evaluate the use in rehabilitation of exoskeletons in general and our Ekso robotic exoskeleton in particular. Although these studies primarily have focused on feasibility and safety and have relied on small sample sizes, initial study findings have been favorable. The Company is aware of eight completed case studies for SCI, four for stroke and one for multiple injury states, with a total patient count for all such studies of approximately 110 patients. We are aware of an additional 14 investigator-initiated studies currently underway, covering stroke, SCI (complete and incomplete), acquired brain injury, Cerebral Palsy and Multiple Sclerosis with a total patient enrollment goal of over 500. Two studies recently announced in 2016 include:

We anticipate completion of several investigator-initiated trials in 2016.

We intend to continue our work with rehabilitation centers and clinicians studying the benefits of robotic exoskeleton rehabilitation using the Ekso. We believe that additional clinical evidence will help treating physicians to better understand the benefits of rehabilitation with the Ekso GT and will support our efforts to achieve reimbursement for the Ekso GT. To this end, we intend to make additional investments in clinical data generation in 2016. Specifically, we plan to initiate a registry study and one or more Company-sponsored clinical trials. We expect to begin enrollment in a Company-led, prospective, multi-center trial with chronic, incomplete SCI patients in the third quarter of 2016.

We believe that reimbursement by the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services (CMS) and third party insurers will play an important role in the long-term success of our efforts to drive commercial adoption of our Ekso GT and to make the Ekso GT a standard of care for rehabilitation for patients with some form of lower limb paralysis or weakness. In order to gain coverage and payment by payers, the Company and its competitors must generate both clinical and economic evidence demonstrating the benefits of robotic exoskeletons. We believe that the investments we are making in clinical trials will assist in generating this evidence. Generally, reimbursement for professional services performed at the hospital by physicians is reported under separate billing codes issued by the American Medical Association (“AMA”) known as Current Procedural Terminology (“CPT”) codes.  While there currently exist generic codes that provide some modest reimbursement for the use of our technology in the rehabilitation setting, we are aware of no CPT code that is specifically applicable to the use of the Ekso GT.  We may determine to pursue an application for a new CPT code.  We have engaged the services of expert consultants with extensive experience in the CPT, coverage and payment decision processes to assist us in our reimbursement strategy.

The European Union also requires a two-track approach to market penetration and subsequent coverage, requiring separate claims for purchasing the device and for requests for training. Our competition has had initial success in Germany with four of the top private payer insurance companies purchasing a personal device.

Current Sales and Marketing Efforts

Our key marketing goal today is to achieve broad-based commercial adoption of our Ekso GT in the rehabilitation setting. We are focusing our go-to-market protocols and collateral on our three target audiences: medical administrators, medical directors/therapists and patients. Working closely with thought leaders, we will continue to build upon our early user-group exchanges, develop clinical education programs, and grow our medical advisory council. We plan to create centers of excellence in the U.S. and Europe, the Middle East and Africa (“EMEA”) that are committed to exoskeleton education and to developing the quantifiable results and metrics by which the effectiveness of exoskeletons may be measured. We are also implementing a customer experience program to increase utilization and adoption in existing and new accounts and to generate more multiple device customers.

Our sales efforts continue to focus on key in-patient and out-patient centers that provide stroke and SCI rehabilitation. Geographically, the priorities remain North America (Canada, the U.S. and Mexico) and EMEA. Currently, we utilize a direct sales force for the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, Spain and the German-speaking countries of Europe. We also have a distributor network that currently covers 19 countries (an increase from seven countries at year end 2014). Our three largest distributors on the basis of Ekso sales are based in Italy, Poland and Mexico.

The sales and marketing team currently consists of 33 professionals, primarily based in the U.S. and Germany:

The sales cycle for the Ekso GT averages approximately eight to 12 months for a first device and two to four months for subsequent devices. Our typical sale is the Ekso GT complete package, which includes the device and all relevant components, two sets of batteries for continuous run-time, training through two levels of certification, and Variable Assist software. Customers also typically purchase Ekso Care, which is our one- to four-year after-sales service package.

After Sales Service

We provide service for the Ekso GT at our facility in Richmond, California or by having one of our Ekso field technicians visit customers at their places of business. When maintenance or service is required, a customer schedules service by contacting us and we then arrange for the appropriate service, depending on the level of Ekso Care for which a customer has contracted. The Ekso GT is designed with Ekso Pulse, which allows us to diagnose many customer service issues remotely.

Manufacturing and Supply Chain

We assemble the Ekso GT and manufacture certain components that are critical to our know-how at our facilities in Richmond, California. We currently run one line for one shift per day and believe we have the capacity to eventually run up to four lines for two shifts per day should we deem it appropriate.

The Ekso GT uses over 700 purchased parts, which we source globally from over 70 suppliers. Whenever possible, we seek to secure dual source suppliers for our components.

Home Mobility

The dynamics and product requirements of the home mobility market are different from those of the clinic. While we believe the home mobility market opportunity is sizable, it will only be served once next generation technology is brought to market that is cost effective for individuals because reimbursement is available and has a level of functionality that enables independent mobilization. Home mobility exoskeletons should be fit to a specific patient and designed for all-day use. In addition, we believe they must be easily transportable, and have improved dynamic stability, user interfaces, and terrain navigation to allow the home users to confidently walk through their daily life with little or no assistance. Given our commercial experience with a medical exoskeleton that has recorded over 37 million steps, coupled with recent research and development advancements in exoskeleton and related technologies, we are now proactively investing resources to design such a commercial product and to develop our go-to-market approach for mass adoption of home mobility devices. We are also collaborating with world-class academic and commercial institutions to refine our technology and to apply the latest technological breakthroughs to the advancement of human ambulation.

In addition to implementing the technological changes necessary in an exoskeleton designed for the home mobility market, we are in parallel working with payers and ensuring our (and where possible, our partners’) trials are and will be generating clinical and economic evidence on the benefits of exoskeletons for home mobility use. Lastly, the go-to-market strategy will likely be quite different than our current sales and marketing approach for the rehabilitation markets. Critical to our success will be implementing such a strategy, possibly with partner(s), which is sustainable to address the potential size of the market.

Able-Bodied Industrial Applications

In December 2014, we introduced our first prototype of an unpowered exoskeleton intended for industrial applications. During 2015, we began investing resources to support requests for prototype demonstrations and in-depth field-testing in real world conditions with advanced prototypes.

Our feedback has begun to validate the growing imperative among construction and manufacturing companies to drive adoption of improved safety and health practices. Furthermore, based on initial customer field-testing and market research, we believe industrial exoskeletons have the potential to help prevent workforce injuries, improve productivity and over time reduce workmen’s compensation and related costs. According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics Report (2012), direct costs related to injuries associated with overexertion in the workplace total over $21.1 billion per year.

In addition, human augmentation technology is being viewed by senior managers of companies that have participated in field-testing as an opportunity to extend the careers of experienced and skilled workers while also changing the work environment to attract future workers to these careers.

Ekso Labs

Ekso Labs, our engineering services division, is focused on technology development and future applications. It is an exoskeleton laboratory that integrates emerging technologies into new product applications and expands on it for our partners. To date, the majority of our Ekso Labs revenue has been in the form of research grants from government organizations including United States Special Operations Command, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation. These projects fund research and development on new exoskeleton systems, providing the Company with new intellectual property and exoskeleton designs that have the potential for commercialization.

In addition to furthering exoskeleton technology for our current medical applications, Ekso Labs’ research and development work may have potential use in future, able-bodied models of the Ekso human exoskeleton. Many of the research projects funded by grants are focused on researching future medical applications and capabilities not yet ready for commercial development. Other projects, often funded by commercial partners or the U.S. military, focus on able-bodied human exoskeleton applications.

Intellectual Property

The Company has established an extensive intellectual property portfolio that includes various U.S. patents and patent applications. The table below provides a summary of U.S. patents by issuing status and ownership status.

Pending applications mean a complete application has been filed with the applicable patent authority and additional action is pending. Provisional applications mean that we have filed a short form application to establish an early filing date in anticipation of completion and submission of a complete application in the future.

Many of these applications have also been filed internationally as appropriate for their respective subject matter. As of February 15, 2015, 85 applications have issued or have been allowed as patents internationally. All told, our patent portfolio contains 192 cases that have issued or are in prosecution in 24 countries.

The Company’s patent portfolio includes product and method type claims, since the devices that we produce and the processes performed by those devices are patentable. Our patents encompass technologies relevant to our devices, including medical exoskeletons, commercial exoskeletons, actuators, and strength-enhancing exoskeletons. The earliest priority date of the portfolio reaches back to 2003, and new applications continue to be filed.

Licensors include the Regents of the University of California (“RUC”) and Garrett Brown (as a result of our acquisition of technology of Equipois).

The license with RUC consists of two agreements and one amendment covering ten patent cases exclusively licensed to the Company, nine of which have issued and one of which remains in prosecution (the “RUC License Agreements”). Inventions covered by a further three patent applications are co-owned by the Company and RUC, with no license agreement between the Company and RUC. As a result, RUC may license its rights in these patents to a third party. With respect to two of these co-owned patent applications, RUC has licensed their rights in the U.S. to an unrelated third party. The third patent application will need to be fully prosecuted before it can be determined which claims are exclusive to us (through a previous license) and which claims RUC may license to other entities.

Pursuant to the RUC License Agreements, we initially paid RUC consideration consisting of $5,000 in cash and 310,400 common shares of Ekso Bionics, and are also committed to pay a 1% royalty on sales, including sales generated by sublicenses. In addition, the RUC license agreements call for minimum annual payments of $50,000. We do not pay royalties to RUC on products sold or to be resold to the U.S. government.

In some cases, as a result of government funding received by the Company, the patents have a government use license, granting the U.S. government a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable, paid-up license for use of the inventions for or on behalf of the U.S. government, as is typical in the case of government sponsored research.

In connection with our acquisition of assets of Equipois, we assumed the rights and obligations of Equipois under a license agreement with Garrett Brown, the developer of certain intellectual property related to mechanical balance and support arm technologies, which grants us an exclusive license with respect to the technology and patent rights for certain fields of use. Pursuant to the terms of the license agreement, we will be required to pay Mr. Brown a single-digit royalty on net receipts, subject to a $50,000 annual minimum royalty requirement.

Intellectual Property Out-Licensing

We believe that the breadth of the coverage across various bionic systems and technologies, together with our freedom to grant sub-licenses under the RUC License Agreements gives us the potential to generate licensing revenue in fields outside our present areas of commercialization. Since 2009, we have generated approximately $1.4 million in such licensing revenue from our two licensees: Lockheed Martin Corporation and OttoBock Healthcare Product GmbH.

Competition

The medical technology, industrial robotics and military equipment industries are characterized by intense competition and rapid technological change. We believe a number of other companies are developing competitive technology and devices for both the able-bodied and medical fields of use and many of these competitors have significantly more financial and other resources than we possess.

In the medical field, we face competition from companies that are focused on technology for rehabilitation of patients suffering from stroke and related neurological disabilities as well as from companies that are focused on SCI. In stroke, Cyberdyne has developed ambulatory exoskeletons with a current commercial focus in Japan and Germany, while Hocoma, AlterG, Aretech and Reha Technology are selling treadmill-based gait therapies. In SCI, ReWalk Robotics and Rex Bionics sell ambulatory exoskeletons. Parker Hannifin announced plans to begin selling over-ground exoskeletons in 2015 which are now available for purchase in Europe. Other companies who have announced plans to commercialize robotic exoskeletons include: Bionik Laboratories, U.S. Bionics, and ExoAtlet.

Technologies developed by competitors in the areas of stroke rehabilitation and SCI represent therapeutic interventions with utility at varying points of the continuum of care. Clinically, the Ekso is unique in its broad ability to mobilize pre- or even non-ambulatory patients using a full weight bearing, over ground, task-based platform. From a practice management perspective, the Ekso is less expensive than many other systems, has a smaller footprint, the ability to move around the hospital, and uses standard power requirements that make it easy to integrate into existing infrastructure. Other over-ground exoskeletons were initially designed as an individual user’s alternative to a wheelchair with the primary goal of providing a means for patients to achieve mobility reliant on the device. By contrast, the Ekso’s design accommodates patients with complete paraplegia and additionally includes features that are optimized to assist therapists in helping patients with some motor ability learn to walk again in a clinical setting, treating several patients and indications in a single day.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the most pressing challenges we face are not necessarily competitive technologies, but rather achieving rapid market awareness and adoption of this emerging technology while acclimating prospects to a fundamentally new paradigm in neuro-rehabilitation and mobility. In addition, it may be difficult for the rehabilitation department of a hospital or clinic to secure the funds for acquisition of an Ekso device in an environment where capital expenditures of this magnitude are not commonly incurred by those rehabilitation departments.

In the able-bodied field, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Panasonic, Honda, Daewoo, Noonee, Revision Military and Cyberdyne – among others - are each developing some form of exoskeleton for military and/or industrial applications.

The field of robotic exoskeleton technology remains in its infancy. As this field develops, we believe we will face increased competition on the basis of product features, clinical outcomes, price, services and other factors. Our competitive position will depend on multiple, complex factors, including our ability to achieve market acceptance for our products, develop new products, implement production and marketing plans, secure regulatory approvals for products under development and protect our intellectual property. In some instances, competitors may also offer, or may attempt to develop, alternative therapies for disease states that may be delivered without a medical device.

Research and Development

The Company engages in research and development activities in an effort to enhance the effectiveness, ease of use, safety and reliability of our commercial exoskeletons and to expand their applications. The Company’s research and development expenditures were $6.5 million, $3.9 million and $2.7 million in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

As part of its engineering services (also known as Ekso Labs), the Company benefited from additional research and development expenditures of $3.6 million, $1.7 million and $1.3 million in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. These are expenditures funded by grants, collaboration partners, or engineering services customers for whom we perform research and development work on human exoskeletons and related technologies. Funding has come from such third parties as Lockheed Martin Corporation (approximately $6 million since 2008 for the development of the Human Universal Load Carrier (“HULC”)), the U.S. National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (“DARPA”), U.S. Special Operations Command (“SOCOM”) and the U.S. Department of Defense.

Governmental Regulation and Product Approval

U.S. Regulation

The U.S. government regulates the medical device industry through various agencies, including but not limited to, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which administers the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The design, testing, manufacturing, storage, labeling, distribution, advertising, and marketing of medical devices are subject to extensive regulation by federal, state, and local governmental authorities in the United States, including the FDA, and by similar agencies in other countries. Any medical device product that we develop must receive all requisite regulatory approvals or clearances, as the case may be, before it may be marketed in a particular country.

Device Development, Marketing Clearance and Approval. The FDA classifies medical devices into one of three classes (Class I, II or III) based on the degree of risk the FDA determines to be associated with a device and the extent of control deemed necessary to ensure the device’s safety and effectiveness. Devices requiring fewer controls because they are deemed to pose lower risk are placed in Class I or II. Class I devices are deemed to pose the least risk and are subject only to general controls applicable to all devices, such as requirements for device labeling, premarket notification, and adherence to the FDA’s current good manufacturing practice requirements, as reflected in its Quality System Regulation (QSR). Class II devices are intermediate risk devices that are subject to general controls and may also be subject to special controls such as performance standards, product-specific guidance documents, special labeling requirements, patient registries or post-market surveillance. Class III devices are those for which insufficient information exists to assure safety and effectiveness solely through general or special controls, and include life-sustaining, life-supporting, or implantable devices, and devices not “substantially equivalent” to a device that is already legally marketed. Most Class I devices, and some Class II devices are exempted by regulation from the 510(k) clearance requirement and can be marketed without prior authorization from FDA. Class I and Class II devices that have not been so exempted are eligible for marketing through the 510(k) clearance pathway. By contrast, devices placed in Class III generally require premarket approval (PMA) prior to commercial marketing.

To obtain 510(k) clearance for a medical device, an applicant must submit a premarket notification application to the FDA demonstrating that the device is “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device, which is typically a Class II device that is legally marketed in the United States. A device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device if it has the same intended use and (i) the same technological characteristics, or (ii) has different technological characteristics and the information submitted demonstrates that the device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed device and does not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness. A showing of substantial equivalence sometimes, but not always, requires clinical data. Generally, the 510(k) clearance process can exceed 90 days and may extend to a year or more. After a device has received 510(k) clearance for a specific intended use, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, such as a significant change in the design, materials, method of manufacture or intended use, will require a new 510(k) clearance or (if the device as modified is not substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device) PMA approval. While the determination as to whether new authorization is needed is initially left to the manufacturer, the FDA may review this determination and evaluate the regulatory status of the modified product at any time and may request the manufacturer to cease marketing and recall the modified device until 510(k) clearance or PMA approval is obtained. The manufacturer may also be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties.

The second, more comprehensive, approval process applies to a new device that is not substantially equivalent to a predicate device or that is to be used in supporting or sustaining life or preventing impairment. These devices are normally Class III devices. For example, most high risk implantable devices are subject to the PMA approval process. Two steps of FDA approval are generally required before a company can market a product in the United States that is subject to approval, as opposed to clearance, as a Class III device. First, a company must comply with investigational device exemption (IDE) regulations in connection with any human clinical investigation of the device. These regulations permit a company to undertake a clinical study of a “non-significant risk” device without formal FDA approval. Prior express FDA approval is required if the device is a significant risk device. Second, the FDA must review the company’s PMA application, which contains, among other things, clinical information acquired under the IDE. Additionally, devices subject to PMA approval may be subject to a panel review to obtain marketing approval and are required to pass a factory inspection in accordance with the current “good manufacturing practices” standards in order to obtain approval. The FDA will approve the PMA application if it finds there is reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective for its intended use. The PMA process takes substantially longer than the 510(k) process, approximately one to two years or more.

In some instances the FDA may find that a device is new and not substantially equivalent to a predicate device but is also not a high risk device as is generally the case with Class III PMA devices. In these instances, the FDA may allow a device to be reclassified from Class III to Class I or II. The de novo reclassification option is an alternate pathway to classify novel devices of low to moderate risk that had automatically been placed in Class III after receiving a “not substantially equivalent” (NSE) determination in response to a 510(k) notification. The FDCA has also been amended to allow a sponsor to submit a de novo reclassification request to the FDA for novel low to moderate risk devices without first being required to submit a 510(k) application. These types of applications are referred to as “Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation” or “de novo.” In instances where a device is deemed not substantially equivalent to a Class II predicate device, the candidate device may be filed as a de novo application which may lead to delays in regulatory decisions by the FDA. FDA review of a de novo application may lead the FDA to identify the device as either a Class I or II device and subject to or exempt from 510(k) premarket notification.

Clinical trials are generally required to support a PMA or de novo reclassification application and are sometimes required for 510(k) clearance. Clinical trials generally require an investigational device exemption application, or IDE, approved in advance by the FDA for a specified number of patients and study sites, unless the product is deemed a non-significant risk device eligible for more abbreviated IDE requirements. Clinical trials are subject to extensive monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Clinical trials must be conducted under the oversight of an institutional review board (IRB), for the relevant clinical trial sites and must comply with FDA regulations, including but not limited to those relating to good clinical practices. To conduct a clinical trial, we also are required to obtain the patients' informed consent in form and substance that complies with both FDA requirements and state and federal privacy and human subject protection regulations. We, the FDA or the IRB could suspend a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a belief that the risks to study subjects outweigh the anticipated benefits. Even if a trial is completed, the results of clinical testing may not adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the device or may otherwise not be sufficient to obtain FDA approval to market the product in the U.S. Similarly, in Europe the clinical study must be approved by a local ethics committee and in some cases, including studies with high-risk devices, by the ministry of health in the applicable country. To date, the Ekso device has been the subject of several clinical studies, some sponsored by the Company, as well as non-Ekso-sponsored independent studies conducted by rehabilitation institutions. In addition, we are currently conducting several studies to investigate additional indications for use for the Ekso device, as well as to evaluate clinical and non-clinical outcomes of using the Ekso device.

While we believe that the Company’s robotic exoskeleton has been appropriately marketed as a Class I 510(k) exempt Powered Exercise Equipment device since it was first sold in the United States in February 2012, on June 26, 2014, the FDA announced the creation of a new product classification for Powered Exoskeleton devices. On October 21, 2014, the FDA published the summary for the new Powered Exoskeleton classification and designated it a Class II medical device, which requires the clearance of a 510(k) notice.

On October 21, 2014, concurrent with the FDA’s publication of the reclassification of Powered Exoskeleton devices, the FDA sent us an “Untitled Letter” which informed us in writing of the agency’s belief that this new product classification applied to the Company’s Ekso device. In response to the letter, the Company submitted a 510(k) notice for the Ekso robotic exoskeleton on December 24, 2014, and the 510(k) was accepted by the FDA for substantive review on July 29, 2015. The Company’s requested indication for use, as specified in its 510(k) notice, was to enable individuals with weakness or paralysis of the lower limbs, such as from SCI, stroke and other conditions causing lower extremity weakness, to perform ambulatory functions such as gait training in rehabilitation institutions, which is more expansive than the indications for use of the predicate device referenced in the Company’s 510(k) notice except that it is limited to rehabilitation institutions under the supervision of a trained physical therapist.

By letter dated September 11, 2015, the FDA requested that the Company provide additional information in support of its requested 510(k) clearance for the Ekso robotic exoskeleton, including information pertaining to the Company’s requested indications for use and clinical data supporting the requested indications for use, as well as information pertaining to mechanical and electromagnetic compatibility testing, electrical safety and software, and information pertaining to medical device reports related to adverse events involving the Ekso robotic exoskeleton.

On December 4, 2015, we held a submission issue meeting with the FDA to discuss our response strategy and seek the FDA’s input on that strategy in advance of the formal submission of the Company’s response to the FDA’s request for additional information. Based on this submission issue meeting, we prepared a response to the FDA that addressed all aspects of the FDA’s request for additional information in a manner intended to support a clearance decision by the FDA as soon as practicable. In connection with our formal response, we revised our requested indications for use to include only individuals with SCI and individuals with hemiplegia due to stroke. Although the FDA has not expressly requested that the Company conduct additional clinical studies or trials in support of its request for clearance, we may conclude after further dialogue with the FDA and our advisors that additional clinical data is required in order to support our requested indications for use. In such an event, the Company may be required to conduct additional clinical testing in support of its requested clearance. Alternatively, the Company also may determine to narrow its indications for use until such time as the Company is able to generate additional data to support broader indications for use.

The Company responded to the FDA’s request for additional information on March 2, 2016. The FDA will review that response for substantive adequacy and either: (1) determine that the response is adequate to support a determination of substantial equivalence, or (2) request further additional information, generally in the form of an interactive review. The FDA will generally seek to make a final decision on a 510(k) submission within 90 days from the date the 510(k) notice was first accepted for substantive review, excluding any time that the application was placed on hold due to an additional information request from the FDA. There is no guarantee that the FDA will ultimately determine that the information provided by the Company is adequate to support a determination of substantial equivalence, and could seek the Company’s voluntary withdrawal of the 510(k) notice or issue a not substantially equivalent (NSE) letter should there be deficiencies in the response.

We believe that the Company will receive a 510(k) determination from the FDA sometime in 2016. However, if the Company were to decide, or be required, to conduct additional clinical testing in support of our request for clearance, the Company may determine to withdraw its pending 510(k) notification and resubmit a 510(k) notification following completion of the additional clinical testing, which could further delay receipt of clearance.

Pervasive and continuing regulation. After a device is placed on the market, numerous regulatory requirements apply. These include:

Advertising and promotion of medical devices, in addition to being regulated by the FDA, are also regulated by the Federal Trade Commission and by state regulatory and enforcement authorities. Recently, promotional activities for FDA-regulated products of other companies have been the subject of enforcement action brought under healthcare reimbursement laws and consumer protection statutes. In addition, under the federal Lanham Act and similar state laws, competitors and others can initiate litigation relating to advertising claims. In addition, we are required to meet regulatory requirements in countries outside the U.S., which can change rapidly with relatively short notice. If the FDA determines that our promotional materials or training constitutes promotion of an un-cleared or unapproved use, it could request that we modify our training or promotional materials or subject us to regulatory or enforcement actions, including the issuance of an untitled letter, a warning letter, injunction, seizure, civil fine or criminal penalties. It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action if they consider our promotional or training materials to constitute promotion of an unapproved use, which could result in significant fines or penalties under other statutory authorities, such as laws prohibiting false claims for reimbursement. In that event, our reputation could be damaged and adoption of the products would be impaired.

The FDA has broad post-market and regulatory enforcement powers. We are subject to unannounced inspections by the FDA to determine our compliance with the QSR and other regulations.

From September 2, 2015 to September 11, 2015, the Division of Bioresearch Monitoring of the FDA’s Office of Compliance conducted an inspection of the Company’s facility in Richmond, California. At the conclusion of the inspection, the FDA issued a Form FDA 483 with observations pertaining to informed consent requirements, reporting of events to FDA, and records maintenance. These observations are inspectional and do not represent a final FDA determination of non-compliance. On October 2, 2015, the Company responded to the FDA. That response describes the corrective and preventive actions that we have implemented and continue to implement to address the FDA’s observations. Due to the nature of the findings, the Company does not expect that the Form FDA 483 will result in the issuance of a warning letter or other action that could interfere with the Company’s operations. However, until this inspection is formally closed, it is possible that the FDA could take further action.

Since July 1, 2015, we have been informed of seven events with respect to our Ekso GT devices that are reportable pursuant to the FDA’s medical device reporting, or MDR, regulations. There were no reported patient injuries related to any of these events, and in each case we have filed the required adverse event reports with the FDA.  We have analyzed the root causes of these issues and have improved the design and strengthened our manufacturing processes as a result. In addition, we have proactively adjusted the device maintenance schedules based on field usage to address these issues. 

Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, which may result in sanctions including, but not limited to:

The Company intends to continue marketing the Ekso robotic exoskeleton under its current Class I registration and listing with its current indications for use until 510(k) clearance is either granted or denied by the FDA, or the Company is otherwise notified by the FDA to cease such activities. The Company believes that in situations where a new product classification has been created and is applicable to a previously marketed device, manufacturers are normally granted enforcement discretion by the FDA and given ample time to seek clearance under the new classification. Nonetheless, the FDA may not agree with our decision to continue marketing the device until a 510(k) notice is cleared. If the FDA disagrees with our decision, we may be required to cease marketing or to recall our products in the U.S. until we obtain clearance or approval, and we may be subject to any of the regulatory fines or penalties identified above.

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products in foreign countries. Whether or not the Company obtains FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before the Company can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country.

The policies of the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities may change and additional government regulations may be enacted which could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our products and could also increase the cost of regulatory compliance. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of adverse governmental regulation that might arise from future legislative or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad.

Employees

As of December 31, 2015, we had 100 employees, including 95 full time employees and five part-time employees. Eleven employees reside in Europe. None of our employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement and we consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated as PN Med Group Inc. in Nevada on January 30, 2012. Prior to the Merger and Split-Off (each as defined below), our business was to distribute medical supplies and equipment in Chile.

On January 15, 2014, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Ekso Acquisition Corp., a corporation formed in the State of Delaware on January 3, 2014 merged with and into Ekso Bionics, Inc., a corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware on January 19, 2005. Ekso Bionics was the surviving corporation in the Merger and became our wholly-owned subsidiary. All of the outstanding Ekso Bionics stock was converted into shares of our common stock.

In connection with the Merger and pursuant to a split-off agreement and general release, we transferred our pre-Merger assets and liabilities to our pre-Merger majority stockholders, in exchange for the surrender by them and cancellation of 17,483,100 shares of our common stock (the “Split-Off”).

As a result of the Merger and Split-Off, we discontinued our pre-Merger business and acquired the business of Ekso Bionics, and have continued the existing business operations of Ekso Bionics as a publicly-traded company under the name Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc.

Our principal executive office is located at 1414 Harbour Way South, Suite 1201, Richmond, California, and our telephone number is (510) 984-1761.

We make available free of charge on or through our website our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. Our internet address is www.eksobionics.com. This website address is intended to be an inactive, textual reference only; none of the material on this website is part of this Report. Copies of our annual reports on Form 10-K will be furnished without charge to any person who submits a written request directed to the attention of our Secretary, at our offices located at 1414 Harbour Way South, Suite 1201, Richmond, California, 94804. The SEC maintains an internet site (http://www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

AN INVESTMENT IN OUR SECURITIES IS HIGHLY SPECULATIVE AND INVOLVES A HIGH DEGREE OF RISK. WE FACE A VARIETY OF RISKS THAT MAY AFFECT OUR OPERATIONS OR FINANCIAL RESULTS AND MANY OF THOSE RISKS ARE DRIVEN BY FACTORS THAT WE CANNOT CONTROL OR PREDICT. BEFORE INVESTING IN OUR SECURITIES YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING RISKS, TOGETHER WITH THE FINANCIAL AND OTHER INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING RISKS ACTUALLY OCCURS, OUR BUSINESS, PROSPECTS, FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS COULD BE MATERIALLY ADVERSELY AFFECTED. IN THAT CASE, THE TRADING PRICE OF OUR COMMON STOCK WOULD LIKELY DECLINE AND INVESTORS MAY LOSE ALL OR A PART OF THEIR INVESTMENT.

THIS REPORT CONTAINS CERTAIN STATEMENTS RELATING TO FUTURE EVENTS OR THE FUTURE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF OUR COMPANY. READERS ARE CAUTIONED THAT SUCH STATEMENTS ARE ONLY PREDICTIONS AND INVOLVE RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES, AND THAT ACTUAL EVENTS OR RESULTS MAY DIFFER MATERIALLY. IN EVALUATING SUCH STATEMENTS, READERS SHOULD SPECIFICALLY CONSIDER THE VARIOUS FACTORS IDENTIFIED IN THIS REPORT, INCLUDING THE MATTERS SET FORTH BELOW, WHICH COULD CAUSE ACTUAL RESULTS TO DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED BY SUCH FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS.

The risks described below do not purport to be all the risks to which the Company could be exposed. This section is a summary of certain risks and is not set out in any particular order of priority. They are the risks that we presently believe are material to the operations of the Company. Additional risks of which we are not presently aware or which we presently deem immaterial may also impair the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

Risks Related to our Business and the Industry in Which We Operate

We have a limited operating history upon which investors can evaluate our future prospects.

Although we were incorporated in 2005, we did not sell our first Ekso medical device until 2012. Therefore, we have limited operating history upon which an evaluation of our business plan or performance and prospects can be made. Our business and prospects must be considered in the light of the potential problems, delays, uncertainties and complications encountered in connection with a newly established business and creating a new industry. The risks include, but are not limited to, the possibility that we will not be able to develop functional and scalable products and services, or that although functional and scalable, our products and services will not be economical to market; that our competitors hold proprietary rights that preclude us from marketing such products; that our competitors market a superior or equivalent product; that we are not able to upgrade and enhance our technologies and products to accommodate new features and expanded service offerings; or that we fail to receive necessary regulatory clearances for our products. To successfully introduce and market our products at a profit, we must establish brand name recognition and competitive advantages for our products. There are no assurances that we can successfully address these challenges. If we are unsuccessful, we and our business, financial condition and operating results could be materially and adversely affected.

Given the limited operating history, management has little basis on which to forecast future demand for our products from our existing customer base, much less new customers. Our current and future expense levels are based largely on estimates of planned operations and future revenues rather than experience. It is difficult to accurately forecast future revenues because our business is new and our market has not been developed. If our forecasts prove incorrect, our business, operating results and financial condition will be materially and adversely affected. Moreover, we may be unable to adjust our spending in a timely manner to compensate for any unanticipated reduction in revenue. As a result, any significant reduction in revenues would immediately and adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

The industries in which we operate are highly competitive and subject to rapid technological change. If our competitors are better able to develop and market products that are safer, more effective, less costly, easier to use, or are otherwise more attractive, we may be unable to compete effectively with other companies.

The medical technology, industrial robotics and military equipment industries are characterized by intense competition and rapid technological change, and we will face competition on the basis of product features, clinical outcomes, price, services and other factors. Competitors may include large medical device and other companies, some of which have significantly greater financial and marketing resources than we do, and firms that are more specialized than we are with respect to particular markets. Our competition may respond more quickly to new or emerging technologies, undertake more extensive marketing campaigns, have greater financial, marketing and other resources than we do or may be more successful in attracting potential customers, employees and strategic partners. Our competitive position will depend on multiple, complex factors, including our ability to achieve market acceptance for our products, develop new products, implement production and marketing plans, secure regulatory approvals for products under development and protect our intellectual property. Competitors may offer, or may attempt to develop, more efficacious, safer, cheaper, or more convenient alternatives to our products, including alternatives that could make the need for robotic exoskeletons obsolete. The development of new or improved products, processes or technologies by other companies may render our products or proposed products obsolete or less competitive. The entry into the market of manufacturers located in low-cost manufacturing locations may also create pricing pressure, particularly in developing markets. Our future success depends, among other things, upon our ability to compete effectively against current technology, as well as to respond effectively to technological advances, and upon our ability to successfully implement our marketing strategies and execute our research and development plan.

Our products or exoskeletons generally may not be accepted in the market.

We cannot be certain that our current products or any other products we may develop or market will achieve or maintain market acceptance. Market acceptance of our products depends on many factors, including our ability to convince key opinion leaders to provide recommendations regarding our products, convince distributors and customers that our technology is an attractive alternative to other technologies, convince health insurers and other third party payers to cover and provide adequate payments for any products that are used for medical or therapy purposes, demonstrate that our products are reliable and supported by us in the field, supply and service sufficient quantities of products directly or through marketing alliances, and price products competitively in light of the current macroeconomic environment, which, particularly in the case of the medical device industry, is becoming increasingly price sensitive.

In addition, the market for medical and industrial exoskeletons is new and unproven. We cannot be certain that the market for robotic exoskeletons will continue to develop, or that robotic exoskeletons for medical or industrial use will achieve market acceptance. If the exoskeleton market fails to develop, or develops more slowly than we anticipate, we and our business, financial condition and operating results could be materially and adversely affected.

Dependence on patent and other proprietary rights and failing to protect such rights or to be successful in litigation related to such rights may result in our payment of significant monetary damages or adversely impact our product offerings.

Our long-term success largely depends on our ability to market technologically competitive products. If we fail to obtain or maintain adequate intellectual property protection, we may not be able to prevent third parties from using our proprietary technologies or may lose access to technologies critical to our products. Also, our currently pending or future patent applications may not result in issued patents, and issued patents are subject to claims concerning priority, scope and other issues.

Furthermore, we have not filed applications for all of our patents internationally and may not be able to prevent third parties from using our proprietary technologies or may lose access to technologies critical to our products in other countries. These include, in some cases, countries in which we are currently selling products and countries in which we intend to sell products in the future.

Intellectual property litigation and infringement claims could cause us to incur significant expenses or prevent us from selling certain of our products.

The industries in which we operate, including, in particular, the medical device industry, are characterized by extensive intellectual property litigation and, from time to time, we might be the subject of claims by third parties of potential infringement or misappropriation. Regardless of outcome, such claims are expensive to defend and divert the time and effort of our management and operating personnel from other business issues. A successful claim or claims of patent or other intellectual property infringement against us could result in our payment of significant monetary damages and/or royalty payments or negatively impact our ability to sell current or future products in the affected category and could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flows, financial condition or results of operations.

Some of the patents in the intellectual property portfolio are not within our complete control, which could reduce the value of such patents.

Some of our U.S. patent applications (which have associated international applications) are co-owned by the Regents of the University of California Berkeley. The Regents of the University of California Berkeley has licensed its rights under many of these patent applications to us, but we do not have a license to their rights under three of these patent applications. With respect to two of these co-owned patent applications, the Regents of the University of California Berkeley have licensed their rights in the U.S. to an unrelated third party. The third patent application will need to be fully prosecuted before it can be determined which claims are exclusive to us (through a previous license) and which claims the Regents of the University of California Berkeley may license to other entities. In addition, in connection with our acquisition of certain assets from Equipois, LLC, we assumed the rights and obligations of Equipois, LLC with respect to certain patents and patent applications under an in-license of intellectual property from a third party and a separate out-license of that intellectual property to a third party for use in a particular field. We do not have complete control over the prosecution of these patent applications. In addition, the license of patent rights under these patents to third parties could reduce the value of our patent portfolio and limit any income or license fees that we might receive if we were to attempt to transfer or license our rights under any of our co-owned or licensed patents.

Enforcing intellectual property rights in foreign nations for military technology may be more problematic than enforcement in other industries.

In many countries, governments reserve the right to allow local manufacturers to infringe patents in cases where it is beneficial to their national security to do so. This could result in additional competition for us or our licensees from local manufacturers in foreign countries even though those manufacturers are infringing patents we hold in those countries, which could adversely affect our ability to sell our products in those countries for military use.

The regulatory approval and clearance processes are expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals or clearances, as the case may be, for the continued commercialization of some or all of our products.

Our medical technology products and operations are subject to regulation by the FDA, the European Union and other governmental authorities both inside and outside of the United States. These agencies enforce laws and regulations that govern the development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, advertising, marketing and distribution, and market surveillance of our medical products. It can be costly and time-consuming to obtain regulatory approvals to market a medical device. Our failure to obtain and maintain clearances or approvals for medical device products could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. In general, unless an exemption applies, we are not permitted to market our products in the United States until we receive a clearance letter under the 510(k) process or approval of a premarket approval application (PMA) from the FDA, depending on the nature of the device.

While we believe that our robotic exoskeleton has been appropriately marketed as a Class I 510(k) exempt Powered Exercise Equipment device since it was first sold in the United States in February 2012, on June 26, 2014, the FDA announced the creation of a new product classification for Powered Exoskeleton devices. On October 21, 2014, the FDA published the summary for the new Powered Exoskeleton classification and designated it a Class II medical device, which requires the clearance of a 510(k) notice.

On October 21, 2014, concurrent with the FDA’s publication of the reclassification of Powered Exoskeleton devices, the FDA sent us an “Untitled Letter” which informed us in writing of the agency’s belief that this new product classification applied to our Ekso device. In response to the letter, we submitted a 510(k) notice for the Ekso robotic exoskeleton on December 24, 2014, and the 510(k) was accepted by the FDA for substantive review on July 29, 2015. Our requested indication for use, as specified in our 510(k) notice, was to enable individuals with weakness or paralysis of the lower limbs, such as from spinal cord injury (SCI), stroke and other conditions causing lower extremity weakness, to perform ambulatory functions such as gait training in rehabilitation institutions, which is more expansive than the indications for use of the predicate device referenced in our 510(k) notice except that it is limited to rehabilitation institutions under the supervision of a trained physical therapist.

By letter dated September 11, 2015, the FDA requested that we provide additional information in support of our requested 510(k) clearance for the Ekso robotic exoskeleton, including information pertaining to our requested indications for use and our clinical data supporting the requested indications for use, as well as information pertaining to mechanical and electromagnetic compatibility testing, electrical safety and software, and information pertaining to medical device reports related to adverse events involving the Ekso robotic exoskeleton.

On December 4, 2015, we held a submission issue meeting with the FDA to discuss our response strategy and seek the FDA’s input on that strategy in advance of our formal submission of our response to the FDA’s request for additional information. Based on this submission issue meeting, we prepared a response to the FDA that addresses all aspects of the FDA’s request for additional information in a manner intended to support a clearance decision by the FDA as soon as practicable. In connection with our formal response, we revised our requested indications for use to include only individuals with spinal cord injury and individuals with hemiplegia due to stroke. Although the FDA has not expressly requested that we conduct additional clinical studies or trials in support of our request for clearance, we may conclude after further dialogue with the FDA and our advisors that additional clinical data is required in order to support our requested indications for use. In such an event, we may be required to conduct additional clinical testing in support of our requested clearance. Alternatively, we also may determine to narrow our indications for use until such time as we are able to generate additional data to support broader indications for use.

We responded to the FDA’s request for additional information on March 2, 2016. The FDA will review that response for substantive adequacy and either: (1) determine that the response is adequate to support a determination of substantial equivalence; or (2) request further additional information, generally in the form of an interactive review. The FDA will generally seek to make a final decision on a 510(k) submission within 90 days from the date the 510(k) notice was first accepted for substantive review, excluding any time that the application was placed on hold due to an additional information request from the FDA. There is no guarantee that the FDA will ultimately determine that the information provided by us is adequate to support a determination of substantial equivalence, and could seek our voluntary withdrawal of the 510(k) notice or issue a not substantially equivalent (NSE) letter should there be deficiencies in the response.

We believe that we will receive a 510(k) determination from the FDA sometime in 2016. However, if we were to decide, or be required, to conduct additional clinical testing in support of our request for clearance, we may determine to withdraw our pending 510(k) notification and resubmit a 510(k) notification following completion of the additional clinical testing, which could further delay receipt of clearance.

Regulatory clearance pursuant to a 510(k) notification is not guaranteed, and the clearance process is expensive, uncertain and may take anywhere from several months to over a year. The FDA also has substantial discretion in the medical device review process. Despite the time and expense exerted, failure can occur at any stage, and we could encounter problems that cause us to repeat or perform additional development, standardized testing, pre-clinical studies and clinical trials. The number of pre-clinical studies and clinical trials that will be required for FDA clearance or approval varies depending on the medical device candidate, the disease or condition that the medical device candidate is designed to address, and the regulations applicable to any particular medical device candidate. The FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities can delay, limit or deny clearance or approval of a medical device candidate for many reasons, including:

The regulatory classification for Powered Exoskeleton devices is new and fairly specific. Our 510(k) for our Ekso robotic exoskeleton is still active, but has not yet been cleared. We intend to continue to market our Ekso robotic exoskeleton until the 510(k) is cleared. The FDA may disagree with this decision and require us to cease marketing and distribution until 510(k) clearance is obtained or subject us to fines and penalties.

We began marketing the Ekso robotic exoskeleton as a Class I 510(k) exempt Powered Exercise Equipment device in February 2012. On June 26, 2014, the FDA announced the creation of a new product classification for Powered Exoskeleton devices. On October 21, 2014, the FDA published the summary for the reclassified Powered Exoskeleton and informed us in writing, via an “Untitled Letter”, of the agency’s belief that this new product classification applied to our Ekso device. This new product classification was designated as being Class II, which requires the clearance of a 510(k). While the new Powered Exoskeleton classification is broadly similar to the Ekso robotic exoskeleton, it includes specific terms, such as “user controlled” and “wrist worn wireless interface,” that do not apply to the Ekso robotic exoskeleton in its current marketed form as a clinical device for gait training by medical personnel. The “user controlled” and “wrist worn wireless interface” features are, however, in line with a robotic exoskeleton that is intended for use outside the supervision of medical staff (i.e., in the home/community), for which the Ekso labeling clearly contraindicates. As a result of these discrepancies, some ambiguity exists as to the application of this product classification to the Ekso robotic exoskeleton. We filed a 510(k) notice for the Ekso robotic exoskeleton on December 24, 2014, which was accepted by the FDA for substantive review on July 29, 2015.

We intend to continue marketing the Ekso robotic exoskeleton with its current indications for use until 510(k) clearance is either granted or denied by the FDA or we are otherwise notified by the FDA to cease from such activities. We believe that in situations where a new product classification has been created and is applicable to a previously marketed device, manufacturers are normally granted enforcement discretion by the FDA and given ample time to seek clearance under the new classification. Nonetheless, the FDA may not agree with our decision to continue marketing the device until a 510(k) is cleared. If the FDA disagrees with our decision, we may be required to cease marketing or to recall the products in the U.S. until we obtain clearance or approval, and we may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties. Any of these sanctions could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations and financial condition.

Any failure or significant delay in completing clinical trials for our products could materially harm our financial results and the commercial prospects for our products.

Initiating and completing clinical trials necessary to drive market adoption and support commercialization can be time consuming and expensive and the outcome uncertain. Moreover, the results of early clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results, and any product we advance into clinical trials may not have favorable results in later clinical trials. Conducting successful clinical studies requires the enrollment of large numbers of patients, and suitable patients may be difficult to identify and recruit. Patient enrollment in clinical trials and completion of patient participation and follow-up depends on many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the trial protocol, the attractiveness of, or the discomforts and risks associated with, the treatments received by enrolled subjects, the availability of appropriate clinical trial investigators and support staff, proximity of patients to clinical sites, patient ability to meet the eligibility and exclusion criteria for participation in the clinical trial and patient compliance. For example, patients may be discouraged from enrolling in our clinical trials if the trial protocol requires them to undergo extensive post-treatment procedures or follow-up to assess the safety and effectiveness of our products or if they determine that the treatments received under the trial protocols are not attractive or involve unacceptable risks or discomforts. Patients may also not participate in our clinical trials if they choose to participate in contemporaneous clinical trials of competitive products. In addition, patients participating in clinical trials may die before completion of the trial or suffer adverse medical events unrelated to investigational products.

To date, the Ekso device has been the subject of several clinical trials, some of which have been partially sponsored by us, but most of which are non-Ekso-sponsored independent studies conducted by rehabilitation institutions. Data from these studies have been provided to the FDA as part of the pending 510(k) submission. In addition, there are several ongoing independent studies to investigate additional indications for use for the Ekso device, as well as to evaluate clinical and non-clinical outcomes of using the Ekso device, and we are currently in the planning stage for several Company-led studies. Sufficient and appropriate clinical protocols to demonstrate safety and efficacy are required and we may not adequately develop such protocols to support clearance and approval. Further, the FDA may require us to submit data on a greater number of patients than we originally anticipated and/or for a longer follow-up period or change the data collection requirements or data analysis applicable to our clinical trials. Delays in patient enrollment or failure of patients to continue to participate in a clinical trial may cause an increase in costs and delays in the approval and attempted commercialization of our products or result in the failure of the clinical trial. In addition, despite considerable time and expense invested in our clinical trials, the FDA may not consider our data adequate to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Such increased costs and delays or failures could adversely affect our business, results of operations and prospects.

The results of clinical trials may not support product submissions or claims or may result in the discovery of adverse side effects.

The Ekso device has been the subject of several clinical trials, some sponsored by us, as well as non-Ekso-sponsored independent studies conducted by rehabilitation institutions. We are currently conducting several studies to investigate additional indications for use for the Ekso device, as well as to evaluate clinical and non-clinical outcomes of using the Ekso device. All clinical trial activities that we undertake are subject to extensive regulation and review by numerous governmental authorities both in the United States and abroad. Clinical trials intended to support a 510(k) or PMA must be conducted in compliance with the FDA’s Good Clinical Practice regulations and similar requirements in foreign jurisdictions. Even if our clinical trials are completed as planned, we cannot be certain that their results will support our intended claims or that the FDA or foreign authorities and Notified Bodies will agree with our conclusions regarding them. Success in pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and we cannot be sure that the later trials will replicate the results of prior trials and pre-clinical studies. The clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our product candidates are safe and effective for the proposed indicated uses, which could cause us to abandon a product candidate and may delay development of others. Any delay or termination of our clinical trials or studies could delay the filing of associated product submissions and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize products requiring submission of clinical data or relying on clinical data for market acceptance. It is also possible that patients enrolled in a clinical trial will experience adverse side effects that are not currently part of the product candidate’s safety profile, which could cause us to delay or abandon development of such product.

Once our products are cleared or approved, modifications to our products may require new 510(k) clearances, premarket approvals or new or amended CE Certificates of Conformity, and may require us to cease marketing or recall the modified products until clearances, approvals or the relevant CE Certificates of Conformity are obtained.

Any modification to a 510(k)-cleared device that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, design, or manufacture, requires a new 510(k) clearance or, possibly, a PMA. The FDA requires every manufacturer to make this determination in the first instance, but the FDA may review such determinations. The FDA may not agree with our decisions regarding whether new clearances or approvals are necessary. If the FDA disagrees with our determinations for any future changes, or prior changes to previously marketed products, as the case may be, we may be required to cease marketing or to recall the modified products until we obtain clearance or approval, and we may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties. Furthermore, the FDA’s ongoing review of the 510(k) program may make it more difficult for us to make modifications to our products, either by imposing more strict requirements on when a new 510(k) for a modification to a previously cleared product must be submitted, or applying more onerous review criteria to such submissions. In July and December 2011, respectively, the FDA issued draft guidance documents addressing when to submit a new 510(k) due to modifications to 510(k) cleared products and the criteria for evaluating substantial equivalence. The July 2011 draft guidance document was ultimately withdrawn, and as a result, the FDA’s original guidance document regarding 510(k) modifications, which dates back to 1997, remains in place. It is uncertain when the FDA will seek to issue new guidance on product modifications. Any efforts to do so could result in a more rigorous review process and make it more difficult to obtain clearance for device modifications.

Even if we obtain regulatory clearances or approvals for our products, the terms thereof and ongoing regulation of our products may limit how we manufacture and market our products, which could materially impair our ability to generate anticipated revenues or profit margins.

Once regulatory clearance or approval has been granted, a cleared or approved product and its manufacturer are subject to continual review. Any cleared or approved product may be promoted only for its indicated uses. In addition, if the FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities clear or approve any of our products, the labeling, packaging, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising and promotion for the product will be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements of the FDA, either before or after clearance or approval, or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities, or if previously unknown problems with our products or manufacturing processes are discovered, we could be subject to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

If imposed on us, any of these sanctions could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are subject to extensive post-market regulation by the FDA. Our failure to meet strict regulatory requirements could require us to pay fines, incur other costs or even close our facilities.

Even if we are able to obtain the proper regulatory clearance or approval to market a product, such as our Ekso robotic exoskeleton, the FDA has the power to require us to conduct post-market studies. These studies can be very expensive and time-consuming to conduct. Failure to complete such studies in a timely manner could result in the revocation of clearance or approval and the recall or withdrawal of the product, which could prevent us from generating sales from that product in the United States. The FDA has broad enforcement powers, and any regulatory enforcement actions or inquiries, or other increased scrutiny on us, could dissuade some customers from using our products and adversely affect our reputation and the perceived safety and efficacy of our products.

We are also currently, and will continue to be after we receive 510(k) clearance, required to comply with the FDA’s Quality System Regulation, or QSR, which covers the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the design, manufacture, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, sterilization, storage, shipping, installation and servicing of our marketed products. The FDA enforces the QSR through periodic announced and unannounced inspections of manufacturing facilities. In addition, in the future, regulatory authorities and/or customers may require specific packaging of sterile products, which could increase our costs and the price of our products. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our products, including unanticipated adverse events or adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, manufacturing problems, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements such as QSR, may result in changes to labeling, restrictions on such products or manufacturing processes, withdrawal of the products from the market, voluntary or mandatory recalls, a requirement to repair, replace or refund the cost of any medical device we manufacture or distribute, fines, suspension of regulatory approvals, product seizures, injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties which would adversely affect our business, operating results and prospects.

If our products, or malfunction of our products, cause or contribute to a death or a serious injury, we will be subject to medical device reporting regulations, which can result in voluntary corrective actions or agency enforcement actions. In addition, product defects could adversely affect the results of our operations.

Under the FDA’s medical device reporting, or MDR, regulations, we are required to report to the FDA any incident in which our product may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or in which our product malfunctioned and, if the malfunction were to recur, would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury. For example, since July 1, 2015, we have been informed of seven events with respect to our Ekso GT devices that are reportable pursuant to the MDR regulations. There were no reported patient injuries related to any of these events, and in each case we have filed or will file the required adverse event reports with the FDA. We have voluntarily implemented a field correction and accelerated maintenance schedule based on field usage to address these issues. In addition, we have analyzed the root causes of these issues and have adjusted our manufacturing process and will source new components accordingly.

Repeated product malfunctions may result in a voluntary or involuntary product recall, which could divert managerial and financial resources, impair our ability to manufacture our products in a cost-effective and timely manner, and have an adverse effect on our reputation, results of operations and financial condition. We are also required to follow detailed recordkeeping requirements for all firm-initiated medical device corrections and removals, and to report such corrective and removal actions to the FDA if they are carried out in response to a risk to health and have not otherwise been reported under the MDR regulations.

When a medical human exoskeleton is used by a paralyzed individual to walk, the individual relies completely on the exoskeleton to hold them upright. There are many exoskeleton components that, if they were to fail catastrophically, could cause a fall resulting in severe injury or death of the patient. Such occurrences could bring about costly litigation and could also bring about regulatory activity on the part of the FDA or its foreign counterparts which could interfere with our ability to market our products.

When an industrial or military exoskeleton is used by a healthy individual — for example to carry a heavy load — malfunction of the device at an inopportune moment (such as when descending a stairway or navigating a precarious trail) could cause a fall resulting in severe injury or death of the person using the device. Such occurrences could bring about costly litigation and could also bring about regulatory activity on the part of OSHA or its foreign counterparts which could interfere with our ability to market our products.

All manufacturers bringing medical devices to market in the European Economic Area are legally bound to report any incident that led or might have led to the death or serious deterioration in the state of health of a patient, user or other person, and which the manufacturer’s device is suspected to have caused, to the competent authority in whose jurisdiction the incident occurred. In such case, the manufacturer must file an initial report with the relevant competent authority, which would be followed by further evaluation or investigation of the incident and a final report indicating whether further action is required. The events described above that were reported to the FDA were also reported to the relevant EU regulatory authorities.

Any adverse event involving our products could result in future voluntary corrective actions, such as recalls or customer notifications, or agency action, such as inspection or enforcement action. We cannot guarantee that adverse events involving our products, such as the Ekso robotic exoskeleton, will not occur in the future. Any corrective action, whether voluntary or involuntary, will require the dedication of our time and capital, distract management from operating our business and may harm our reputation and financial results. Personal injuries relating to the use of our products could also result in product liability claims being brought against us. In some circumstances, such adverse events could also cause delays in new product approvals.

A recall of our products, either voluntarily or at the direction of the FDA or another governmental authority, or the discovery of serious safety issues with our products, could have a significant adverse impact on us.

The FDA and similar foreign governmental authorities have the authority to require the recall of commercialized products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture or in the event that a product poses an unacceptable risk to health. Manufacturers may, under their own initiative, recall a product if any material deficiency in a device is found. A government-mandated or voluntary recall by us could occur as a result of an unacceptable risk to health, component failures, manufacturing errors, design or labeling defects or other deficiencies and issues.

Any future recalls of any of our products would divert managerial and financial resources and could have an adverse effect on our reputation, results of operations and financial condition, which could impair our ability to produce our products in a cost-effective and timely manner in order to meet our customers’ demands. We may also be required to bear other costs or take other actions that may have a negative impact on our future sales and our ability to generate profits.

U.S. legislative or FDA regulatory reforms may make it more difficult and costly for us to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates and to manufacture market and distribute our products after approval is obtained.

From time to time, legislation is drafted and introduced in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the regulatory approval, manufacture and marketing of regulated devices. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the FDA in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. Any new regulations or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations may impose additional costs or lengthen review times of future products. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed, and what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

For example, the FDA may change its clearance and approval policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions which may prevent or delay approval or clearance of our products under development or impact our ability to modify cleared products on a timely basis. For example, the FDA recently issued guidance documents intended to explain the procedures and criteria the FDA will use in assessing whether a 510(k) submission meets a minimum threshold of acceptability and should be accepted for review. Under the “Refuse to Accept” guidance, the FDA conducts an early review against specific acceptance criteria to inform 510(k) submitters if the submission is administratively complete or if not, to identify the missing element(s). Submitters are given the opportunity to provide the FDA with the identified information, but if the information is not provided within a defined time, the submission will not be accepted for FDA review.

Any change in the laws or regulations that govern the clearance and approval processes relating to our current and future products could make it more difficult and costly to obtain clearance or approval for new products, or to produce, market and distribute existing products. Significant delays in receiving clearance or approval, or the failure to receive clearance or approval for our new products would have an adverse effect on our ability to expand our business.

Failure to comply with anti-kickback and fraud regulations could result in substantial penalties and changes in our business operations.

Although we do not provide healthcare services, submit claims for third-party reimbursement, or receive payments directly from Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payers for our products, we are subject to healthcare fraud and abuse regulation and enforcement by federal, state and foreign governments, which could significantly impact our business. The principal U.S. federal laws implicated include those that prohibit (i) the filing of false or improper claims for federal payment, known as the false claims laws, (ii) unlawful inducements for the referral of business reimbursable under federally-funded health care programs, known as the anti-kickback laws, and (iii) health care service providers from seeking reimbursement for providing certain services to a patient who was referred by a physician who has certain types of direct or indirect financial relationships with the service provider, known as the Stark law. Many states have similar laws that apply to reimbursement by state Medicaid and other funded programs as well as in some cases to all payers.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us now or in the future, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from governmental health care programs, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

We may be subject to penalties and may be precluded from marketing our products if we fail to comply with extensive governmental regulations.

The FDA and various non-U.S. regulatory authorities require that our products be manufactured according to rigorous standards. These regulatory requirements may significantly increase our production costs and may even prevent us from making our products in amounts sufficient to meet market demand. If we change our approved manufacturing process, the FDA may need to review the process before it may be used. Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements discussed could subject us to enforcement actions, including warning letters, fines, injunctions and civil penalties against us, recall or seizure of our products, operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of our production, and criminal prosecution.

Federal, state and non-U.S. regulations regarding the manufacture and sale of medical devices are subject to future changes. The complexity, timeframes and costs associated with obtaining marketing clearances are unknown. Although we cannot predict the impact, if any, these changes might have on our business, the impact could be material.

Certain of our competitors have reported injuries caused by the malfunction of human exoskeleton devices (in at least one case to the FDA). Injuries caused by the malfunction or misuse of human exoskeleton devices, even where such malfunction or misuse occurs with respect to one of our competitor’s products, could cause regulatory agencies to implement more conservative regulations on the medical human exoskeleton industry, which could significantly increase our operating costs.

We could be exposed to significant liability claims if we are unable to obtain insurance at adequate levels or otherwise protect ourselves against potential product liability claims.

The testing, manufacture, marketing and sale of medical devices entail the inherent risk of liability claims or product recalls. Although we maintain product liability insurance, the coverage is subject to deductibles and limitations, and may not be adequate to cover future claims. A successful product liability claim or product recall could inhibit or prevent the successful commercialization of our products, cause a significant financial burden on us, or both, which in either case could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Warranty claims or any other service and repairs provided by the Company at its expense could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Sales of our Ekso GT generally include a one-year warranty for parts and services in the U.S. and a two-year warranty in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. We also generally provide customers with an option to purchase an extended warranty for up to an additional three years. The costs associated with such warranties, including any warranty-related legal proceedings, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and liquidity. As we enhance our product and in an effort to build our brand and drive adoption, the Company has elected to incur increased service expenses related to an accelerated maintenance program, field corrections and the implementation of technological improvements developed subsequent to many of our units being placed into service, sometimes outside of its warranty and contractual obligations, Continuation of these activities could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and liquidity.

If we are not able to both obtain and maintain adequate levels of third-party reimbursement for our products, it would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Healthcare providers and related facilities are generally reimbursed for their services through payment systems managed by various governmental agencies worldwide, private insurance companies, and managed care organizations. The manner and level of reimbursement in any given case may depend on the site of care, the procedure(s) performed, the final patient diagnosis, the device(s) utilized, available budget, or a combination of these factors, and coverage and payment levels are determined at each payer’s discretion. The coverage policies and reimbursement levels of these third-party payers may impact the decisions of healthcare providers and facilities regarding which medical products they purchase and the prices they are willing to pay for those products. Thus, changes in reimbursement levels or methods may either positively or negatively impact sales of our products.

We have no direct control over payer decision-making with respect to coverage and payment levels for our medical device products. Additionally, we expect many payers to continue to explore cost-containment strategies (e.g., comparative and cost-effectiveness analyses, so-called “pay-for-performance” programs implemented by various public and private payers, and expansion of payment bundling schemes such as Accountable Care Organizations, and other such methods that shift medical cost risk to providers) that may potentially impact coverage and/or payment levels for our current products or products we develop.

Changes in reimbursement practices of third-party payers could affect the demand for our products and the prices at which they are sold.

The sales of our products could depend, in part, on the extent to which healthcare providers and facilities or individual users are reimbursed by government authorities, private insurers and other third-party payers for the costs of our products or the services performed with our products. The coverage policies and reimbursement levels of third-party payers, which can vary among public and private sources and by country, may affect which products customers purchase and the prices they are willing to pay for those products in a particular jurisdiction. Reimbursement rates can also affect the acceptance rate of new technologies. Legislative or administrative reforms to reimbursement systems in the United States or abroad, or changes in reimbursement rates by private payers, could significantly reduce reimbursement for procedures using our products or result in denial of reimbursement for those products, which would adversely affect customer demand or the price customers may be willing to pay for such products.

Clinical outcome studies regarding our products may not provide sufficient data to either cause third-party payers to approve reimbursement or to make human exoskeletons a standard of care.

Our business plan relies on broad adoption of human exoskeletons to provide neuro-rehabilitation in the form of gait training to individuals who have suffered a neurological injury or disorder. Although use of human exoskeletons in neuro-rehabilitation is new, use of robotic devices to provide gait training has been going on for over a decade and the clinical studies relating to such devices have had both positive and negative outcomes. Much of the rehabilitation community has rejected the use of such devices based on the data from some of these studies. Although we believe that human exoskeletons will outperform such robotic equipment, this has not been proven. Furthermore, it may prove impossible to prove an advantage in a timely manner, or at all, which could prevent broad adoption of our products.

Part of our business plan relies on broad adoption of the Ekso robotic exoskeleton to provide “early mobilization” of individuals who have been immobilized by an injury, disease, or other condition. Although the health benefits of other methods of “early mobilization” have been demonstrated in clinical studies in fields such as stroke, those studies did not test early mobilization with human exoskeletons directly. It may be necessary to provide outcome studies on early mobilization with exoskeletons directly in order to convince the medical community of their effectiveness. Such studies have not been designed at this time, and may be too large and too costly for us and our partners to conduct. Failure to prove the health benefits of early mobilization with human exoskeletons could limit our sales.

The technology of load carriage exoskeletons (such as the HULC® human exoskeleton) is at a very early stage of development and the technology may not be broadly adopted in military or other markets.

The most recent testing of our Human Universal Load Carrier (“HULC^®”) technology showed that the metabolic cost of load carriage while wearing the device varied greatly from subject to subject. This implied that the device helped some subjects and hindered others. The source of this phenomenon and whether it will go away with training of the subjects using the device remains unknown and requires further research and development. This phenomenon and others like it could limit the adoption of such devices by militaries or other customers to a certain portion of their personnel or in the worst case could make it impractical to deploy at all.

We may be unable to attract and retain key employees.

Our success depends on our ability to identify, hire, train and retain highly qualified managerial, technical and sales and marketing personnel. In addition, as we introduce new products or services, we will need to hire additional personnel. Currently, competition for personnel with the required knowledge, skill and experiences is intense, and we may not be able to attract, assimilate or retain such personnel. The inability to attract and retain the necessary managerial, technical and sales and marketing personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We will experience long and variable sales cycles, which could have a negative impact on our results of operations for any given quarter and may result in volatility in our stock price.

The Ekso device has a lengthy sale and purchase order cycle because it is a major capital item and generally requires the approval of senior management at purchasing institutions, which may contribute to substantial fluctuations in our quarterly operating results. Other factors that may cause our operating results to fluctuate include:

In addition to these factors, expenditures are based, in part, on expected future sales. If sales levels in a particular quarter do not meet expectations, we may be unable to adjust operating expenses quickly enough to compensate for the shortfall of sales, and our results of operations may be adversely affected.

International sales of our products account for a portion of our revenues, which will expose us to certain operating risks. If we are unable to successfully manage our international activities, our net sales, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely impacted.

Our business currently depends in part on our activities in Europe and other foreign markets, making it subject to a number of challenges that specifically relate to international business activities. These include:

If we are unable to meet and overcome these challenges, then our international operations may not be successful, which could adversely affect our net sales, results of operations and financial condition and limit our growth.

We may be unable to manage our growth and entry into new business areas.

If the initial response to our exoskeleton products exceeds our capacity to provide services timely and efficiently, then we may need to expand our operations accordingly and swiftly. Our management believes that establishing industry leadership will require us to:

To be able to expand our operations in a cost-effective or timely manner and increase the overall market acceptance of our products and services in this manner, we will need additional capital and technical and managerial human resources. These additional resources may not be available to us. Our failure to timely and efficiently expand our operations and successfully achieve the four requirements listed above could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The disruption or loss of relationships with vendors and suppliers for the components of our products could materially adversely affect our business.

Our ability to manufacture and market our products successfully is dependent on relationships with both third party vendors and suppliers. Although most of the raw materials that we use to manufacture our products are readily available from a number of suppliers, we generally procure raw materials and components through purchase orders, with no guaranteed supply arrangements. Our inability to obtain sufficient quantities of various components, if and as required in the future, may subject us to:

In addition, failure of any one supplier’s components could result in a product recall, which could materially adversely affect our business, operations and cash flows.

New product introductions may adversely impact our financial results.

We may introduce new products with enhanced features and extended capabilities from time to time. The products may be subject to various regulatory processes, and we may need to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals in order to sell our new products. If a potential purchaser believes that we plan to introduce a new product in the near future or if a potential purchaser is located in a country where a new product that we have introduced has not yet received regulatory approval, planned purchases may be deferred or delayed. As a result, new product introductions may adversely impact our financial results.

The acquisition of other companies, businesses, or technologies could result in operating difficulties, dilution, and other harmful consequences.

We may selectively pursue strategic acquisitions, any of which could be material to our business, operating results, and financial condition. Future acquisitions could divert management’s time and focus from operating our business. In addition, integrating an acquired company, business or technology is risky and may result in unforeseen operating difficulties and expenditures associated with integrating employees from the acquired company into our organization and integrating each company’s accounting, management information, human resources and other administrative systems to permit effective management. The anticipated benefits of future acquisitions may not materialize. Future acquisitions or dispositions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or amortization expenses, or write-offs of goodwill, any of which could harm our financial condition. Future acquisitions may also require us to obtain additional financing, which may not be available on favorable terms or at all.

The impact of United States healthcare reform legislation remains uncertain.

In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) was enacted into law. The legislation seeks to reform the United States healthcare system. It is far-reaching and is intended to expand access to health insurance coverage, improve quality and reduce costs over time. We expect the new law will have a significant impact upon various aspects of our business operations. The ACA reduces Medicare and Medicaid payments to hospitals, clinical laboratories and pharmaceutical companies, and could otherwise reduce the volume of medical procedures. These factors, in turn, could result in reduced demand for our products and increased downward pricing pressure. It is also possible that the ACA will result in lower reimbursements. While the ACA is intended to expand health insurance coverage to uninsured persons in the United States, the impact of any overall increase in access to healthcare on sales of our products remains uncertain. In addition, the new law imposes a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices that will apply to United States sales of our medical device product. Many of the details of the new law will be included in new and revised regulations, which have not yet been promulgated, and require additional guidance and specificity to be provided by the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor and Department of the Treasury. Accordingly, while it is too early to understand and predict the ultimate impact of the new law on our business, the legislation and resulting regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.

Healthcare changes in the United States and other countries resulting in pricing pressures could have a negative impact on our future operating results.

In addition to the ACA, initiatives sponsored by government agencies, legislative bodies and the private sector to limit the growth of healthcare costs, including price regulation and competitive pricing, are ongoing in markets where we will do business. Pricing pressure has also increased in these markets due to continued consolidation among health care providers, trends toward managed care, the shift towards governments becoming the primary payers of health care expenses and laws and regulations relating to reimbursement and pricing generally. Reductions in reimbursement levels or coverage or other cost-containment measures could unfavorably affect our future operating results.

Continuing worldwide macroeconomic instability, such as recent recessions in Europe and the debt crisis in certain countries in the European Union, could negatively affect our ability to conduct business in those geographies.

Since 2008, the global economy has been impacted by the sequential effects of an ongoing global financial crisis which has caused extreme disruption in the financial markets, including severely diminished liquidity and credit availability. There can be no assurance that further deterioration will not occur. Our customers and suppliers may experience financial difficulties or be unable to borrow money to fund their operations which may adversely impact their ability to purchase our products or to pay for them on a timely basis, if at all. The continuing debt crisis in certain European countries could cause the value of the euro to deteriorate, reducing the purchasing power of our European customers. Failure to receive payment of all or a significant portion of our receivables could adversely affect our results of operations. In addition, financial difficulties experienced by our suppliers could result in product delays and inventory issues.

Natural or other disasters could disrupt our business and result in loss of revenue or in higher expenses.

Natural disasters, terrorist activities, military conflict and other business disruptions could seriously harm our revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. Our corporate headquarters are located in California, a seismically active region. A natural disaster in any of our major markets in North America or Europe could have a material adverse impact on our operations, operating results and financial condition. Further, any unanticipated business disruption caused by Internet security threats, damage to global communication networks or otherwise could have a material adverse impact on our operating results.

Risks Related to our Financial Condition

We have a history of losses and we may not achieve or sustain profitability in the future.

We have incurred losses in each fiscal year since our incorporation in 2005. We anticipate that our operating expenses will increase in the foreseeable future as we continue to invest to grow our business, acquire customers and develop our platform and new functionality. These efforts may prove more expensive than we currently anticipate, and we may not succeed in increasing our revenues sufficiently to offset these higher expenses.

We may not be able to reduce the cost to manufacture or service our products as planned.

Our business plan assumes that exoskeletons can be manufactured more inexpensively than they are currently being manufactured. However, we have not yet found a way to significantly reduce the manufacturing cost of our products and doing so may prove more difficult than expected or even impossible. For example, if expectations for greater functionality of the products drive costs up as other factors drive costs down, the result may be that the overall cost of manufacturing the product stays the same or even increases. Likewise, we currently provide service and support of our products for our customers at a high standard (both in and out of warranty), and plan on continuing to do so. Our business plan also assumes that as we continue to improve our product, we achieve improved levels of product reliability and decreased service cost and frequency, which also may prove more difficult than expected.

We may not be able to leverage our cost structure or achieve better margins.

Due to the early stage of our commercial efforts, and particularly the early stage of customer adoption of our products, our current sales and marketing, research and development, and general and administrative expenses are each a higher percentage of sales than they will need to be for us to reach profitability. While we do expect these expenses to grow as our business grows, we also expect these expenses to decline as a percentage of revenues over time. If we are unable to leverage these costs and grow revenues at a greater pace than these operating expenses as we expect, we will not be able to achieve viable operating margins and profitability.

If we are unable to obtain additional financing on acceptable terms, we may have to curtail our growth or cease our development plans and operations.

The operation of our business and our growth efforts will require significant cash outlays and advance capital equipment expenditures and commitments.

We have been largely dependent on capital raised through our private placement offering that was completed in the first quarter of 2014, through the subsequent exercise of warrants that were issued in the same financing, and through our registered direct offering completed in December 2015, and going forward will be largely dependent on capital raised in any future offerings, to implement our business plan and support our operations.

Based upon our current twelve-month average monthly net use of cash and currently projected financial results, we believe we have sufficient resources to meet our financial obligations into the first quarter of 2017.   If we encounter material deviations from our current plans including, but not limited to, lower than expected level of sales of our Ekso GT or higher than expected expenses, our ability to fund our operations into the first quarter of 2017 will be negatively impacted.

At the present time, we have not made any arrangements to raise additional cash. We anticipate for the foreseeable future that cash on hand and cash generated from operations will not be sufficient to meet our cash requirements, and that we will need to raise additional capital through investments to fund our operations and growth. There is no guarantee that we will be able to raise additional working or growth capital as needed on terms acceptable to us, if at all. If we are unable to raise capital as needed, we may be required to reduce the scope of our business development activities, which could harm our business plans, financial condition and operating results, or cease our operations entirely. Financings, if obtained, may be on terms that are dilutive to our stockholders, and the prices at which new investors would be willing to purchase our securities may be lower than the price at which existing stockholders purchased their shares.

Our reported financial results may be adversely affected by changes in our accounting policies or in accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

Generally accepted accounting principles in the United States are subject to interpretation by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Securities and Exchange Commission and various bodies formed to promulgate and interpret appropriate accounting principles. The accounting principles and accompanying accounting pronouncements, implementation guidelines and interpretations for many aspects of our business, including revenue recognition, are highly complex and involve subjective judgments. Some of these policies require the use of estimates and assumptions that may affect the value of our assets and liabilities, and financial results. We may be required or determine that it is appropriate to change our accounting policies or the manner in which they are implemented as circumstances change and additional information becomes known. A change in applicable rules, their interpretation, or their application could have a significant effect on our reported financial results, and could affect the reporting of transactions completed before the announcement of a change.

Changes in tax laws or exposure to additional income tax liabilities could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to income taxes as well as non-income based taxes, in both the U.S. and various jurisdictions outside the U.S. We are subject to ongoing tax audits in various jurisdictions. Tax authorities may disagree with certain positions we have taken and assess additional taxes and penalties. We regularly assess the likely outcomes of these audits in order to determine the appropriateness of our tax provision. However, there can be no assurance that we will accurately predict the outcomes of these audits, and the actual outcomes of these audits could have a material impact on our consolidated earnings and financial condition. Additionally, changes in tax laws or tax rulings could materially impact our effective tax rate. Proposals for fundamental U.S. corporate tax reform, if enacted, could have a material adverse impact on our future results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Securities

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders or prevent or make more difficult certain transactions, including a sale or merger of the Company.

In the future, we may issue our authorized but previously unissued equity securities, resulting in the dilution of the ownership interests of our present stockholders. The Company’s current Articles of Incorporation authorize the Company to issue an aggregate of 500,000,000 shares of common stock and 10,000,000 shares of “blank check” preferred stock. We may issue additional shares of our common stock or other securities that are convertible into or exercisable for our common stock in connection with hiring or retaining employees, future acquisitions, future sales of our securities for capital raising purposes, or for other business purposes. The future issuance of any such additional shares of our common stock will dilute the ownership interest of our current stockholders and may create downward pressure on the trading price of the common stock. In addition, the terms of any new securities may include liquidation or other preferences that may adversely affect the rights of our existing stockholders.

The ability of our Board of Directors to issue additional stock may prevent or make more difficult certain transactions, including a sale or merger of us.

Our Board of Directors is authorized to issue up to 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock with powers, rights and preferences designated by it. Shares of voting or convertible preferred stock could be issued, or rights to purchase such shares could be issued, to create voting impediments or to frustrate persons seeking to effect a takeover or otherwise gain control of us. The ability of the Board of Directors to issue such additional shares of preferred stock, with rights and preferences it deems advisable, could discourage an attempt by a party to acquire control of us by tender offer or other means. Such issuances could therefore deprive stockholders of benefits that could result from such an attempt, such as the realization of a premium over the market price for their shares in a tender offer or the temporary increase in market price that such an attempt could cause. Moreover, the issuance of such additional shares of preferred stock to persons friendly to the Board of Directors could make it more difficult to remove incumbent managers and directors from office even if such change were to be favorable to stockholders generally.

There currently is a limited trading market for our common stock. Failure to maintain a trading market could negatively affect the value of our common stock and make it difficult or impossible for existing stockholders to sell their shares.

Our common stock is quoted on the OTC Markets under the symbol “EKSO.” The OTC Markets is a thinly traded market and lacks the liquidity of certain other public markets with which some investors may have more experience. We may not ever be able to satisfy the listing requirements for our common stock to be listed on a national securities exchange, which is often a more widely-traded and liquid market. Some, but not all, of the factors which may delay or prevent the listing of our common stock on a more widely-traded and liquid market include the following: our stockholders’ equity may be insufficient; the market value of our outstanding securities may be too low; our net income from operations may be too low; our common stock may not be sufficiently widely held; we may not be able to secure market makers for our common stock; and we may fail to meet the rules and requirements mandated by the several exchanges and markets to have our common stock listed. Should we fail to satisfy the initial listing standards of the national exchanges, or our common stock is otherwise rejected for listing, and remains listed on the OTC Markets or is suspended from the OTC Markets, the trading price of our common stock could suffer and be subject to increased volatility.

Our stock may be traded infrequently and in low volumes, so our stock price may be volatile and our existing stockholders may be unable to sell their shares at or near the quoted bid prices.

Until our common stock is listed on a national securities exchange such as the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ Stock Market, we expect our common stock to remain eligible for quotation on the OTC Markets, or on another over-the-counter quotation system, or in the “pink sheets.” In those venues, however, the shares of our common stock may trade infrequently and in low volumes, meaning that the number of persons interested in purchasing our common shares at or near bid prices at any given time may be relatively small or non-existent. In addition, the price of our stock on the OTC Markets may be highly volatile and could fluctuate substantially due to a variety of factors, including:

In addition, shares owned by our directors and officers are currently subject to contractual lock-up agreements that expire March 24, 2016. Sales by our officers and directors after the expiration of their lock-up agreements could impair the ability of a shareholder to sell our common stock in the amount and at the price and time such holder desires.

Further, if we fail to meet the criteria set forth in SEC regulations, various requirements would be imposed by law on broker-dealers who sell our securities to persons other than established customers and accredited investors. Consequently, such regulations may deter broker-dealers from recommending or selling our common stock, which may further affect the liquidity of our common stock. This would also make it more difficult for us to raise capital.

Our common stock is subject to the “penny stock” rules of the SEC and the trading market in the securities is limited, which makes transactions in the stock cumbersome and may reduce the value of an investment in the stock.

Rule 15g-9 under the Exchange Act of 1934 establishes the definition of a “penny stock,” for the purposes relevant to us, as any equity security that has a market price of less than $5.00 per share or with an exercise price of less than $5.00 per share, subject to certain exceptions. For any transaction involving a penny stock, unless exempt, the rules require: (a) that a broker or dealer approve a person’s account for transactions in penny stocks; and (b) the broker or dealer receive from the investor a written agreement to the transaction, setting forth the identity and quantity of the penny stock to be purchased.

In order to approve a person’s account for transactions in penny stocks, the broker or dealer must: (a) obtain financial information and investment experience objectives of the person and (b) make a reasonable determination that the transactions in penny stocks are suitable for that person and the person has sufficient knowledge and experience in financial matters to be capable of evaluating the risks of transactions in penny stocks.

The broker or dealer must also deliver, prior to any transaction in a penny stock, a disclosure schedule prescribed by the SEC relating to the penny stock market, which, in highlight form: (a) sets forth the basis on which the broker or dealer made the suitability determination; and (b) confirms that the broker or dealer received a signed, written agreement from the investor prior to the transaction. Generally, brokers may be less willing to execute transactions in securities subject to the “penny stock” rules. This may make it more difficult for investors to dispose of our common stock and cause a decline in the market value of our common stock.

Disclosure also has to be made about the risks of investing in penny stocks in both public offerings and in secondary trading and about the commissions payable to both the broker or dealer and the registered representative, current quotations for the securities and the rights and remedies available to an investor in cases of fraud in penny stock transactions. Finally, monthly statements have to be sent disclosing recent price information for the penny stock held in the account and information on the limited market in penny stocks.

We have never paid and do not intend to pay cash dividends.

Cash dividends have never been declared or paid on our common stock, and we do not anticipate such a declaration or payment for the foreseeable future. We expect to use future earnings, if any, to fund business growth. Therefore, stockholders will not receive any funds absent a sale of their shares of common stock. If we do not pay dividends, our common stock may be less valuable because a return on investment will only occur if our stock price appreciates.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and may elect to comply with reduced public company reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies, which could make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act enacted in April 2012. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we may choose to take advantage of exemptions from various public company reporting requirements. These exemptions include, but are not limited to, (a) not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, (b) reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports, proxy statements and registration statements, and (c) exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We could be an emerging growth company for up to five years after the first sale of our common equity securities pursuant to an effective registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933. However, if certain events occur prior to the end of such five year period, including if we become a “large accelerated filer,” our annual gross revenues exceed $1 billion or we issue more than $1 billion of non-convertible debt in any three year period, we would cease to be an emerging growth company prior to the end of such five year period. We have taken advantage of certain of the reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in the filings we have made with the SEC and may elect to take advantage of other reduced burdens in future filings. As a result, the information that we provide to our stockholders may be different than information received from other public reporting companies. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive as a result of our reliance on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result of any choice we make to reduce disclosure, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. However, we have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, we will be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies.

Being a public company is expensive and administratively burdensome.

As a public reporting company, we are subject to the information and reporting requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, the Exchange Act of 1934 and other federal securities laws, rules and regulations related thereto, including compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Complying with these laws and regulations requires the time and attention of our Board of Directors and management, and increases our expenses. Among other things, we are required to:

The costs of preparing and filing annual and quarterly reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC and furnishing audited reports to stockholders is expensive and much greater than that of a privately-held company, and compliance with these rules and regulations may require us to hire additional financial reporting, internal controls and other finance personnel, and will involve a material increase in regulatory, legal and accounting expenses and the attention of management. There can be no assurance that we will be able to comply with the applicable regulations in a timely manner, if at all. In addition, being a public company makes it more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance. In the future, we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain this coverage. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified executives and members of our Board of Directors, particularly directors willing to serve on our audit committee.

Any failure to maintain effective internal control over our financial reporting could materially adversely affect us.

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires us to include in our annual reports on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q an assessment by management of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. In addition, our independent registered public accounting firm has reported on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of such internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015. We previously reported a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting related to the timing of the implementation of certain policies, processes and procedures that we have put in place since the Merger. Throughout 2014 and 2015, we continued to strengthen our internal control environment by implementing new policies, processes and procedures. Our remediation efforts, including the testing of these controls, continued into 2015. This material weakness was considered remediated in the fourth quarter of 2015, once these controls were shown to be operational for a sufficient period of time to allow management to conclude that these controls were operating effectively. While we believe that the policies, processes and procedures we put in place are sufficient to render our internal controls over financial reporting effective, our initiatives may not prove successful and in the future management may not be able to conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective. Furthermore, even if management were to reach such a conclusion, if our independent registered public accounting firm is not satisfied with the adequacy of our internal control over financial reporting, or if the independent auditors interpret the requirements, rules or regulations differently than we do, then (if required in the future) they may decline to attest to management’s assessment or may issue a report that is qualified. Any of these events could result in a loss of investor confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which in turn could negatively affect the price of our common stock.

In particular, we must perform system and process evaluation and testing of our internal control over financial reporting to allow management and our independent registered public accounting firm to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, as required by Section 404. Our compliance with Section 404 may require that we incur substantial accounting expense and expend significant management efforts.

***

The risks above do not necessarily comprise all of those associated with an investment in us. This Report contains forward looking statements that involve unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, financial condition, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward looking statements. Factors that might cause such a difference include, but are not limited to, those set out above.

None.

Our principal executive offices are currently located at 1414 Harbour Way South, Suite 1201, Richmond, CA 94804, where the Company leases approximately 45,000 square feet. In addition, we rent 4,585 square feet of office space at Tullastraße 80, 79108 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.

The Company does not own any real property.

None.

Not applicable.

PART II

Common Stock Information

Our common stock is currently eligible for quotation and trades on the OTC Market under the symbol “EKSO.” The quotation of our common stock began on or about January 16, 2014. There has been limited trading in our common stock to date.

As of March 1, 2016, we had 108,555,641 shares of our common stock issued and outstanding held by approximately 286 stockholders of record.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common stock and do not intend to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Payment of future dividends, if any, will be at the discretion of our board of directors after taking into account various factors, including our financial condition, operating results, restrictions imposed by financing arrangements, if any, legal and regulatory restrictions on the payment of dividends, current and anticipated cash needs and other factors the board of directors deems relevant.

The last reported sale price of the common stock on the OTC Markets on March 1, 2016 was $0.90.

The following table sets forth the high and low closing bid prices for our common stock for the fiscal quarter indicated as reported on OTC Markets. The quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commission and may not represent actual transactions.

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

See Item 12, “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters” for information regarding securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans.

Performance Graph

The following graph shows a comparison of cumulative total return for our common stock, the Nasdaq Composite Total Returns Index, and the Nasdaq Medical Equipment Index. Such returns are based on historical results and are not intended to suggest future performance. The graph assumes $100 was invested in our common stock and in each of the indexes on January 16, 2014. Data for the Nasdaq Composite Index and the Nasdaq Medical Equipment Index assume reinvestment of dividends. We have never paid dividends on our common stock and we do not anticipate paying any dividends in the foreseeable future. The stockholder return shown on the graph below is not necessarily indicative of future performance, and we do not make or endorse any predictions as to future stockholder returns.

The following table sets forth certain financial data with respect to our business. The information set forth below is not necessarily indicative of results of future operations and should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 7 and the financial statements and related notes thereto in Item 8. The operations data for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014, and 2013 and the financial position data for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 are derived from, and are qualified by reference to, the audited consolidated financial statements that are included in this Report. The remaining financial data are derived from audited, consolidated financial statements which are not included in this Report. Amounts in the following table are in thousands, except share and per share amounts:

The warrants issued in the transaction were initially valued at $11.7 million and recorded as a warrant liability. Due to a decrease in our per share stock price from the transaction date to December 31, 2015, the warrant liability was reduced by $2.5 million, resulting in a non-cash gain.

The following discussion contains forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ significantly from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause future results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, those discussed in "Risk Factors" and elsewhere in this Report. See also "Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements."

Overview

Capitalization and Ownership Structure

The following discussion highlights the Company’s results of operations and the principal factors that have affected our consolidated financial condition as well as our liquidity and capital resources for the periods described, and provides information that management believes is relevant for an assessment and understanding of our consolidated financial condition and results of operations presented herein. The following discussion and analysis is based on the Company’s audited financial statements contained in this Report, which have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States. You should read the discussion and analysis together with such financial statements and the related notes thereto.

We were incorporated in Nevada as PN Med Group Inc. on January 30, 2012.  On December 16, 2013, we completed a 3.462-for-1 forward split of our common stock in the form of a dividend, with the result that the 6,350,000 shares of common stock outstanding immediately prior to the stock split became 21,983,700 shares of common stock outstanding immediately thereafter.

On December 18, 2013, (i) we changed our name from PN Med Group Inc. to Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc., and (ii) we increased our authorized capital stock from 75,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001, to 500,000,000 shares of common stock and 10,000,000 shares of “blank check” preferred stock.

On January 15, 2014, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Ekso Acquisition Corp., a corporation formed in the State of Delaware on January 3, 2014, merged with and into Ekso Bionics, Inc., a corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware on January 19, 2005 (the “Merger”). Ekso Bionics was the surviving corporation in the Merger and became our wholly-owned subsidiary. At the closing of the Merger, all of the outstanding common stock and preferred stock of Ekso Bionics was converted into an aggregate of 42,615,556 shares of our common stock, the outstanding warrants to purchase securities of Ekso Bionics were converted into warrants to purchase an aggregate of 621,361 shares of our common stock, and the outstanding options to purchase common stock of Ekso Bionics were converted into options to purchase an aggregate of 7,602,408 shares of our common stock. In addition, warrants to purchase an additional 225,000 shares of our common stock were issued to the prior lender of Ekso Bionics and 250,000 shares of common stock were issued to consultants to Ekso Bionics.

In connection with the Merger and pursuant to a split-off agreement and general release, we transferred our pre-Merger assets and liabilities to our pre-Merger majority stockholders, in exchange for the surrender by them and cancellation of 17,483,100 shares of our common stock (the “Split-Off”).

Also in connection with the Merger, the Company completed a private placement offering (the “PPO”) of 30,300,000 units consisting of one share of common stock plus a warrant (the “PPO Warrants”) to purchase an additional share of common stock of the Company at $2.00 per share with a five year term (the “Units”). Included in the initial Unit sales were 5,000,000 Units that were issued upon conversion of $5,000,000 of Ekso Bionics’ senior subordinated secured convertible notes (the “2013 Bridge Notes”) issued to accredited investors in November 2013. In addition, investors in the 2013 Bridge Notes received warrants to purchase 2,500,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $1.00 per share for a term of three years (the “Bridge Warrants”) upon the closing of the Merger and the PPO.

The placement agent for the PPO and its sub-agents were paid an aggregate commission of $3,030,000 and were issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 3,030,000 shares of our common stock at $1.00 per share with a five year term.

In February 2014, an additional 779,768 shares of our common stock were issued to pre-merger shareholders of PN Med Group Inc. pursuant to a provision in the Merger Agreement requiring us to issue a number of shares such that the aggregate ownership of the pre-Merger shareholders (not including any shares of common stock purchased by them in the PPO) remained approximately 6.8% of the outstanding common stock of the Company.

In November 2014, the Company consummated an offer to amend and exercise (the “Offer to Amend and Exercise”) its PPO Warrants at a temporarily reduced exercise price. Pursuant to the Offer to Amend and Exercise, an aggregate of 22,755,500 PPO Warrants were exercised by their holders at an amended exercise price of $1.00 per share.

These warrants contained “weighted average” anti-dilution protection in the event that we issued common stock or securities convertible into or exercisable for shares of common stock at a price lower than the subject warrant’s exercise price, subject to certain customary exceptions, as well as customary provisions for adjustment in the event of stock splits, subdivision or combination, mergers, etc. The anti-dilution protection feature required the Company to record the underlying securities as a liability and to adjust their respective values to market at each reporting period. As part of the Offer to Amend and Exercise, the Company sought and received approval to amend the warrants to remove the price-based anti-dilution provision.

On December 1, 2015, the Company through its wholly owned subsidiary, Ekso Bionics, acquired the mechanical balance and support arms technologies of Equipois, LLC, including the rights to the zeroG® and X-Ar® products. The initial purchase price for the acquired assets was 781,250 shares of the Company’s common stock. The Company also agreed to issue additional shares of common stock based upon the achievement of certain post closing performance criteria.

On December 23, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to sell 15,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 (“Preferred Shares”) and warrants to purchase 14,851,486 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $1.25 per share for a term of five years (each, a “Warrant” and collectively, the “Warrants”), to certain institutional investors in a registered direct offering at a purchase price of $1,000 for each Preferred Share and related Warrants for aggregate proceeds of $15,000,000. See Note 13 on our consolidated financial statements under the caption, “Capitalization and Equity Structure – Convertible Preferred Stock” and “Capitalization and Equity Structure – Warrants – 2015 Warrants” for a description of the Preferred Shares and Warrants.

Business

We design, develop and sell exoskeletons that have applications in healthcare, industrial, military, and consumer markets. Our exoskeletons systems are worn over the user’s clothing and augment human strength, endurance and mobility. These systems serve multiple markets and can be used both by able-bodied users as well as by persons with physical disabilities. We or our partners have sold, rented or leased devices that (a) enable individuals with neurological conditions affecting gait (e.g., spinal cord injury or stroke) to rehabilitate and to walk again; (b) allow industrial workers to perform heavy duty work for extended periods; and (c) permit soldiers to carry heavy loads for long distances while mitigating lower back, knee, and ankle injuries.

Our long-term goal is to have one million persons stand and walk in Ekso exoskeletons by February 2022. The first step to achieving that goal is for us to focus on selling our medical exoskeletons to rehabilitation centers and hospitals in the United States and Europe. Ekso Bionics began that effort with the February 2012 sale of Ekso, an exoskeleton for complete spinal cord injuries (“SCI”). We have expanded that effort with the launch of our Variable Assist software and the announcement of our newest hardware platform, Ekso GT. The Variable Assist software enables users with any amount of lower extremity strength to contribute their own power for either leg to achieve self-initiated walking. The Ekso GT builds on the experience of the Ekso and incorporates Variable Assist, allowing us to expand our sales and marketing efforts beyond SCI-focused centers to centers supporting stroke and related neurological patients. In the U.S. there are about 5.9 million stroke and SCI rehabilitation sessions conducted on about 680,000 stroke and SCI patients at 16,900 facilities. Globally, there are an estimated 50,000 rehabilitation facilities.

In parallel to the development and early commercialization of medical exoskeletons, we have begun to work on the commercialization of exoskeletons for able-bodied users, specifically for industrial and construction applications.

Critical Accounting Policies, Estimates, and Judgments

Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. We continually evaluate our estimates and judgments, our commitments to strategic alliance partners and the timing of the achievement of collaboration milestones. We base our estimates and judgments on historical experience and other factors that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. Materially different results can occur as circumstances change and additional information becomes known. Besides the estimates identified below that are considered critical, we make many other accounting estimates in preparing our financial statements and related disclosures. All estimates, whether or not deemed critical, affect reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, as well as disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities. These estimates and judgments are also based on historical experience and other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Materially different results can occur as circumstances change and additional information becomes known, even for estimates and judgments that are not deemed critical.

Revenue and Cost of Revenue

When collaboration, other research arrangements and product sales include multiple-element revenue arrangements, we account for these transactions by determining the elements, or deliverables, included in the arrangement and determining which deliverables are separable for accounting purposes. We consider delivered items to be separable if the delivered item(s) have stand-alone value to the customer and delivery or performance of the undelivered item is considered probable and substantially in control of the vendor.

We recognize revenue when the four basic criteria of revenue recognition are met:

Beginning in 2012, with the commercialization of the Ekso, we began to recognize revenue from the sales of the Ekso and related services, in addition to our historical revenue streams including collaborative research and development service arrangements, technology license agreements, and government grants.

Medical Device Revenue and Cost of Revenue

We build medical device robotic exoskeletons for commercial sale and capitalize into inventory materials, direct and indirect labor and overhead in connection with manufacture and assembly of these units.

Through December 31, 2015, the sale of an exoskeleton, associated software, training, support and maintenance were deemed as a single unit of accounting due to the uncertainty of follow up maintenance service agreements which were forecast to extend to three years. Accordingly, the sales amount of an exoskeleton and its associated cost, were deferred at the time of shipment. Upon completion of training, such amounts were recognized as revenue and cost of revenue over a three year period on a straight line basis. Beginning on January 1, 2016, we intend to immediately recognize revenue and associated cost of revenue of medical devices upon the completion of training.

In the event that we receive payment for associated maintenance, such amounts are recognized as revenue over the requisite service period. Deviations of actual expenses to revenue received are recognized in the statement of operations as either warranty expense or income.

Engineering Services Revenue and Cost of Revenue

Collaborative arrangements typically consist of cost reimbursements for specific engineering and development spending, and future product royalty payments. Cost reimbursements for engineering and development spending are recognized as the related project labor hours are incurred in relation to all labor hours and when collectability is reasonably assured. Amounts received in advance are recorded as deferred revenue until the technology is transferred, services are rendered, or milestones are reached. Product royalty payments are recorded when earned under the arrangement.

Government grants, which support our research efforts in specific projects, generally provide for reimbursement of approved costs as defined in the notices of grant awards. Grant revenue is recognized as the associated project labor hours are incurred in relation to total labor hours. There are some grants, such as the National Science Foundation grants, which we draw upon and spend based on budgets preapproved by the grantor.

The cost of engineering services revenue includes payroll and benefits, subcontractor expenses and materials. All costs related to engineering services are expensed as incurred and included in cost of revenue.

Research and Development

Research and development costs consist of costs incurred for internal research and development activities. These costs primarily include salaries and other personnel-related expenses, contractor fees, facility costs, supplies, and depreciation of equipment associated with the design and development of new products prior to the establishment of their technological feasibility. Such costs are expensed as incurred.

Inventories, net

Inventories are recorded at the lower of cost or market value. Cost is principally determined using the average cost method. Parts from vendors are received and recorded as raw material. Once the raw materials are incorporated in the fabrication of the product, the related value of the component is recorded as work in progress (“WIP”). Direct and indirect labor and applicable overhead costs are also allocated and recorded to WIP inventory. Finished goods are comprised of completed products that are ready for customer shipment. We periodically evaluate the carrying value of inventory on hand for potential excess amounts over sales and forecasted demand. Excess and obsolete inventories would be recorded as an inventory impairment charge to the consolidated statement of operations.

Stock-based Compensation

We measure stock-based compensation expense for all stock-based awards made to employees and directors based on the estimated fair value of the award on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model and recognize the fair value less estimated forfeitures on a straight-line basis over the requisite service periods of the awards. Stock-based awards made to non-employees are measured and recognized based on the estimated fair value on the vesting date and re-measured at each reporting date.

Our determination of the fair value of stock-based awards on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model is affected by our stock price as well as assumptions regarding a number of highly complex and subjective variables. These variables include, but are not limited to, our expected stock price volatility over the term of the awards, and actual and projected employee stock option exercise behaviors. Because there is insufficient information available to estimate the expected term of the stock-based awards, we adopted the simplified method of estimating the expected term pursuant to SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 110. On this basis, we estimate the expected term of options granted by taking the average of the vesting term and the contractual term of the option.

We have, from time to time, modified the terms of stock options granted to our employees. We account for the incremental increase in the fair value over the original award on the date of the modification as an expense for vested awards or over the remaining service (vesting) period for unvested awards. The incremental compensation cost is the excess of the fair value based measure of the modified award on the date of modification over the fair value of the original award immediately before the modification.

Convertible Instruments

We account for hybrid contracts that feature conversion options in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States. ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging Activities (“ASC 815”) requires companies to bifurcate conversion options from their host instruments and account for them as free standing derivative financial instruments according to certain criteria. The criteria includes circumstances in which (a) the economic characteristics and risks of the embedded derivative instrument are not clearly and closely related to the economic characteristics and risks of the host contract, (b) the hybrid instrument that embodies both the embedded derivative instrument and the host contract is not re-measured at fair value under otherwise applicable generally accepted accounting principles with changes in fair value reported in earnings as they occur and (c) a separate instrument with the same terms as the embedded derivative instrument would be considered a derivative instrument.

Conversion options that contain variable settlement features such as provisions to adjust the conversion price upon subsequent issuances of equity or equity linked securities at exercise prices more favorable than that featured in the hybrid contract generally result in their bifurcation from the host instrument.

We account for convertible instruments when we have determined that the embedded conversion options should not be bifurcated from their host instruments, in accordance with ASC 470-20, Debt with Conversion and Other Options (“ASC 470-20”). Under ASC 470-20, we record, when necessary, discounts to convertible notes for the intrinsic value of conversion options embedded in debt instruments based upon the differences between the fair value of the underlying common stock at the commitment date of the note transaction and the effective conversion price embedded in the note. We account for convertible instruments (when we have determined that the embedded conversion options should be bifurcated from their host instruments) in accordance with ASC 815.  Under ASC 815, a portion of the proceeds received upon the issuance of the hybrid contract is allocated to the fair value of the derivative. The derivative is subsequently marked to market at each reporting date based on current fair value, with the changes in fair value reported in results of operations.

We also follow ASC 480-10, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity (“ASC 480-10”) in its evaluation of the accounting for a hybrid instrument. A financial instrument that embodies an unconditional obligation, or a financial instrument other than an outstanding share that embodies a conditional obligation, that the issuer must or may settle by issuing a variable number of its equity shares shall be classified as a liability (or an asset in some circumstances) if, at inception, the monetary value of the obligation is based solely or predominantly on any one of the following: (a) a fixed monetary amount known at inception (for example, a payable settleable with a variable number of the issuer’s equity shares); (b) variations in something other than the fair value of the issuer’s equity shares (for example, a financial instrument indexed to the Standard and Poor's S&P 500 Index and settleable with a variable number of the issuer’s equity shares); or (c) variations inversely related to changes in the fair value of the issuer’s equity shares (for example, a written put option that could be net share settled). Hybrid instruments meeting these criteria are not further evaluated for any embedded derivatives, and are carried as a liability at fair value at each balance sheet date with remeasurements reported in interest expense in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Common Stock Warrant Liability

For warrants where there is a possibility that we may have to settle the warrants in cash, we record the fair value of the issued warrants as a liability at each reporting date and records changes in the estimated fair value as a non-cash gain or loss in the consolidated statements of operations. The fair values of these warrants have been determined using the Binomial Lattice (“Lattice”) valuation model, and the changes in the fair value are recorded in the consolidated statements of operations. The Lattice model provides for assumptions regarding volatility, call and put features and risk-free interest rates within the total period to maturity. These values are subject to a significant degree of judgment on the part of us.

Warrants Issued in Connection with Financings

We generally account for warrants issued in connection with debt and equity financings as a component of equity, unless the warrants include a conditional obligation to issue a variable number of shares or there is a deemed possibility that we may need to settle the warrants in cash. For warrants issued with a conditional obligation to issue a variable number of shares or the deemed possibility of a cash settlement, we record the fair value of the warrants as a liability at each balance sheet date and record changes in fair value in other income (expense) in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Business Combinations

We account for business combinations under the acquisition method of accounting in accordance with ASC 805, Business Combinations, where the total purchase price is allocated to the tangible and identified intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on their estimated fair values. The purchase price is allocated using the information currently available, and may be adjusted, up to one-year from the acquisition date, after obtaining more information regarding, among other things, asset valuations, liabilities assumed and revisions to preliminary estimates.

Contingent consideration, if any, is recorded at the acquisition date based upon the estimated fair value of the contingent payments. The fair value of the contingent consideration is re-measured each reporting period with any adjustments in fair value being recognized in earnings from operations.

The purchase price in excess of the fair value of the tangible and identified intangible assets acquired less liabilities assumed is recognized as goodwill.

Comparison of the year ended December 31, 2015 to the year ended December 31, 2014 (dollars in thousands):

Revenue

Medical device revenue increased $1.3 million, or 45%, during the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to the year ended December 31, 2014 primarily due to a 50% increase in the recognition of revenue resulting from the amortization of deferred revenue associated with medical device sales. Engineering services revenue increased $2.0 million, or 83%, primarily due to an overall increase in revenue generating projects.

Gross Profit

Gross profit decreased $0.4 million, or 24%, during the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to the year ended December 31, 2014 due to a decrease in our medical device segment of $0.6 million, or 63%. This decrease in our medical device segment primarily relates to an increase in service costs as a result of an accelerated maintenance program, field corrections, and the implementation of technological improvements developed subsequent to units being placed into service. We recognize service costs on an as-incurred basis, which exceeded the increase in associated revenue during 2015 compared to 2014. We continue to evaluate this level of increased expenses associated with fleet enhancements and expect these costs to increase in 2016. Gross profit for our engineering services increased $0.2 million, or 25%, primarily driven by a better balance of higher margin projects in 2015 compared to 2014.

Operating Expenses

Sales and marketing expenses increased $2.2 million, or 31%, during the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to the year ended December 31, 2014 primarily due to an increase of $0.7 million in compensation expense, which included a non-cash stock-based compensation increase of $0.2 million, as a result of an increase in employee headcount. We also experienced an increase of $0.7 million related to the increase of the use of market research consultants, trade show presence, and website and social media activities in connection with ramping up our marketing efforts.

Research and development expenses increased $2.6 million, or 68%, during the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to the year ended December 31, 2014. We experienced a $1.7 million increase in employee compensation expense, which included a non-cash stock-based compensation increase of $0.2 million, as a result of an increase in employee headcount. During 2015, our new industrial business contributed an additional $1.0 million to research and development expense.

General and administrative expenses decreased $0.4 million, or 5%, during the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to the year ended December 31, 2014, partially due to the absence in 2015 of a one-time bonus pay out of $0.3 million and professional services fees both associated with the 2014 private placement offering. General and administrative expense in 2015 included an increase in non-cash stock-based compensation of $0.1 million.

Other Income (Expense), Net

Other income (expense), net reflects a change of $19.0 million, or 112%, during the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to the year ended December 31, 2014. The 2015 results reflect the effect of the December 2015 issuance of warrants to purchase 14.9 million shares of common stock in conjunction with our issuance of 15,000 shares of Series A convertible preferred stock. The warrants were initially valued at $11.7 million and a warrant liability was recorded. Due to a decrease in our per share stock price from the transaction date to December 31, 2015, the warrant liability was reduced by $2.5 million, resulting in a non-cash gain. The results for 2014 reflect the issuance of warrants during the Merger and subsequent PPO, that due to an anti-dilutive featue of the warrants then in effect, resulted in a non-cash charge of $16.5 million. See Note 13 on our consolidated financial statements under the caption, “Capitalization and Equity Structure – Warrants” for a description of the warrants, including the method and inputs used to estimate their fair value.

Preferred Deemed Dividend

On December 23, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to sell 15,000 shares of Series A convertible preferred stock and warrants to purchase 14.9 million shares of the Company’s common stock, for cash of $13.7 million, net of issuance cost, of which $0.2 million was paid in 2016. Because the preferred shares were in-the-money on the date of issuance, the Company recognized a beneficial conversion feature of $3.3 million that was recorded as a non-cash preferred deemed dividend. In December 2015, 1,737 shares of Preferred Shares were converted into 1,720,003 million shares of common stock resulting in an additional $1.4 million non-cash preferred deemed dividend that related to the accretion of the discount associated with the warrants and stock issuance costs. Total preferred deemed dividends for the year were $4.7 million. See Note 13 on our consolidated financial statements under the caption, “Capitalization and Equity Structure – Convertible Preferred Stock” for a additional information.

Comparison of the year ended December 31, 2014 to the year ended December 31, 2013 (dollars in thousands):

Revenue

Medical device revenue increased $1.3 million, or 81%, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2013 due to an increase in recognized revenue as the number of medical device sales being amortized to revenue more than doubled compared to the same period in the prior year. Engineering services revenue increased $0.7 million, or 42%, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2013 from an overall net increase in revenue generating projects, primarily a result of our work on the U.S. Special Operations Command’s TALOS project in 2014.

Gross Profit

Overall, gross profit increased by approximately $1.0 million, or 166%, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2013. Our medical device gross profit increased by $0.7 million, or 480%, due to an increase of 52 units in the field. Engineering services gross profit increased by $0.2 million, or 57%, due primarily to a new revenue generating project with the U.S. Special Operations Command.

Operating Expenses

Sales and marketing expenses increased $2.8 million, or 65%, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2013 largely from an increase of $1.3 million in compensation related costs. In 2013, compensation costs were kept low pending an inflow of investment capital. In addition, travel costs increased by $0.4 million, reflecting greater sales efforts, and stock compensation increased by $0.2 million, as a result of grants made during 2014. The fact that the Company went public in early 2014 lead to a greater media presence during the year, which caused an increase in marketing related expenses by $0.6 million compared to 2013.

Research and development expenses increased $1.2 million, or 44%, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2013 primarily from an increase of $0.6 million in compensation related costs. As noted above, compensation costs were kept low in 2013 pending an inflow of investment capital. In addition, head count increased from approximately 13 employees at the end of 2013 to approximately 24 employees at the end of 2014. Patent related expenses increased by approximately $0.2 million in 2014 compared to 2013.

General and administrative expenses increased $3.5 million, or 89%, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2013, due primarily to a $1.8 million increase in compensation-related costs as compared to the year ended December 31, 2013. As noted above, compensation costs were kept low in 2013 pending an inflow of investment capital. In addition, we incurred $1.6 million in professional services fees primarily related to the merger, public company requirements and investor relations expenses.

Other Income (Expense), Net

Total other income (expense), net reflected an increase of $15.4 million as compared to the year ended December 31, 2013 primarily from a $16.7 million net change in non-cash charges relating to outstanding warrants. The $16.5 million of warrant liability charges in 2014 were attributable to warrants issued in the private placement offering in January and February 2014. Due to an anti-dilution provision in the warrants, we were required to classify the warrants as a liability and to adjust their value to market at each measurement period. In November 2014, the holders of a majority of the then outstanding warrants approved an amendment to remove the price-based anti-dilution provisions in the warrants. As a result, the warrants were no longer recorded as a liability effective November 2014 because they met the criteria for equity treatment. Interest expense decreased $1.3 million in 2014 as compared to 2013 due to the repayment of outstanding debt in January 2014.

Financial Condition, Liquidity and Capital Resources

Since the Company’s inception, we have devoted substantially all of our efforts toward the development of exoskeletons for the medical, military and industrial markets, toward the commercialization of our medical exoskeletons to rehabilitation centers and toward raising capital. Accordingly, we are considered to be in the early commercialization stage. We have financed our operations primarily through the issuance and sale of equity securities for cash consideration and convertible and promissory notes, as well as from government research grant awards and strategic collaboration payments.

Cash and Working Capital

Since the Company’s inception, we have incurred recurring net losses and negative cash flows from operations. We have incurred net losses of $19.6 million, $33.8 million and $11.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. In addition, our operating activities have used $18.3 million, $15.0 million and $9.1 million in cash for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014, and 2013, respectively.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Largely as a result of significant research and development activities related to the development of our advanced technology and commercialization of this technology into our medical device business, we have incurred significant operating losses and negative cash flows from operations since inception. We have also recognized significant non-cash losses associated with the revaluation of certain securities, which have also contributed significantly to our accumulated deficit. As of December 31, 2015, we had an accumulated deficit of $91.4 million.

Cash on hand at December 31, 2015 was $19.6 million, compared to $25.2 million at December 31, 2014. Based upon our current twelve-month average monthly net use of cash of approximately $1.5 million and assuming increases in current revenue, offset by incremental net use of cash for increased sales and marketing and research and development, and a potential increase in rental activity from our medical device business, we believe we have sufficient resources to meet our financial obligations into the first quarter of 2017.

Our actual capital requirements may vary significantly and will depend on many factors. For example, we plan to continue to increase our investments (i) in our clinical, sales and marketing initiatives to accelerate adoption of the Ekso robotic exoskeleton in the rehabilitation market, (ii) in our research, development and commercialization activities with respect to an Ekso robotic exoskeleton for home use, and/or (iii) in the development and commercialization of able-bodied exoskeletons for industrial use. Consequently, we will require significant additional financing in the future, which we intend to raise through corporate collaborations, public or private equity offerings, debt financings or warrant solicitations within the next two to four quarters. Sales of additional equity securities by us could result in the dilution of the interests of existing stockholders. There can be no assurance that financing will be available when required in sufficient amounts, on acceptable terms or at all. In the event that the necessary additional financing is not obtained, we may be required to reduce our discretionary overhead costs substantially, including research and development, general and administrative and sales and marketing expenses or otherwise curtail operations.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

The following table summarizes the sources and uses of cash for the periods stated (in thousands):

Net Cash Used in Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities during the year ended December 31, 2015 was driven by our $19.6 million net loss, partially offset by $0.6 million of non-cash charges. Non-cash charges included $1.7 million of stock compensation expense and $0.9 million of depreciation and amortization expense, offset by a $2.5 million gain from the revaluation of warrants issued in our December 2015 financing.

Net cash used in operating activities during the year ended December 31, 2014 was driven by our $33.8 million net loss, partially offset by $18.5 million in non-cash charges. Non-cash charges included $16.5 million that was attributable to warrants issued in the private placement offering in January and February 2014. Due to an anti-dilution provision in the warrants, we were required to classify the warrants as a liability and to adjust their value to market at each reporting period.

Net cash used in operating activities during the year ended December 31, 2013 was driven by our $11.9 million net loss, partially offset by $1.9 million in non-cash charges. A net $0.7 million of deferred revenue and deferred cost of revenue positively impacted operating cash flows for the year.

Net Cash Used in Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities of $1.5 million, $1.5 million, and $0.4 million during the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, was primarily to acquire property and equipment, including expansion of our company-owned fleet of Ekso units used for demonstrations, loaners to current customers, and as rental units.

Net Cash Provided by Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities of $14.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2015 included a net $13.9 million from the December 2015 issuance of 15,000 Convertible Preferred Shares and Warrants to purchase 14.9 million shares of common stock.

Net cash provided by financing activities of $40.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2014 included a net $22.0 million from the private placement offering in January and February, 2014 and $21.4 million from the exercise of warrants in November 2014. The proceeds from the 2014 private placement offering were in turn used to retire $2.6 million of outstanding debt.

Net cash provided by financing activities of $8.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2013 was driven by the issuance of convertible preferred stock and convertible bridge notes that netted $10.1 million in cash, offset by principal payments on notes payable of $1.8 million.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

Our liquidity is not dependent on the use of off-balance sheet financing arrangements (as that term is defined in Item 303(a) (4) (ii) of Regulation S-K) and as of December 31, 2015 we had no such arrangements. There has been no material change in our contractual obligations other than in the ordinary course of business since our fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

The following table summarizes our outstanding contractual obligations as of December 31, 2015 and the effect those obligations are expected to have on our liquidity and cash flows in future periods (in thousands):

The amount above under Equipois supply agreement reflects the minimum purchase amount under the agreement, with a maximum purchase amount that may be due of $0.5 million. The agreement is set to expire on December 31, 2016, unless mutually extended by the parties.

In addition to the table above, which reflects only fixed payment obligations, we have two license agreements to maintain exclusive rights to certain patents. Under these license agreements, we are required to pay 1% of net sales of products sold to entities other than the U.S. government. In the event of a sublicense, we will owe 21% of license fees and must pass through 1% of the sub-licensee’s net sales of products sold to entities other than the U.S. government. The license agreements also stipulate minimum annual royalties of $50,000 per year.

In connection with our acquisition of Equipois in December 2015, we assumed the rights and obligations of Equipois under a license agreement with Garrett Brown, the developer of certain intellectual property related to mechanical balance and support arm technologies, which grants us an exclusive license with respect to the technology and patent rights for certain fields of use. Pursuant to the terms of the license agreement, we will be required to pay Mr. Brown a single-digit royalty on net receipts, subject to a $50,000 annual minimum royalty requirement.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements under the caption “Recent Accounting Pronouncements” for a discussion of new accounting pronouncements. We do not expect that any new pronouncements or interpretations upon adoption will have a material impact on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

We report our financial results in U.S. dollars; however we conduct business in foreign countries. A portion of our operations consist of sales activities outside of the United States and, as such, we have foreign currency exposure to non-United States dollar revenues and accounts receivable. Currently, we sell our products mainly in United States dollars, Euros and British Pounds although we may in the future transact business in other currencies. Future fluctuations in the exchange rates of these currencies may impact our revenues. In the past, we have not hedged our exposures to foreign currencies or entered into any other derivative instruments and we have no current plans to do so. For the year ended December 31, 2015, sales denominated in foreign currencies were approximately 11% of total revenue. A hypothetical 10% increase in the United States dollar exchange rate used would have resulted in a $0.2 million decrease to billed revenues for 2015.

Table of Contents

The following financial statements are filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors and Stockholders

Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Ekso Bionics, Inc. as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc. at December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015 in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and our report dated March 14, 2016 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Stockholders

Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc.

We have audited Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (the COSO criteria). Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc.’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the accompanying report, Item 9A, Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc. maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, based on the COSO criteria.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc. as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of operations, convertible preferred stock and stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015 of Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc. and our report dated March 14, 2016 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(In thousands, except par value amounts)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements

Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Operations

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements

Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)

(In thousands)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements

Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc.

Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

(In thousands)