Microbot Medical Inc. - Annual Report: 2018 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

For the transition period from ____ to _____

Commission file number: 000-19871

MICROBOT MEDICAL INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

25 Recreation Park Drive, Unit 108

Hingham, MA 02043

(Address including zip code of registrant’s Principal Executive Offices)

(781) 875-3605

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

Securities registered under Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered under 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 every Interactive Data file required to be submitted 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 such files). Yes [X] No [  ]

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) 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. [  ]

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

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. [  ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes [  ] No [X]

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter: approximately $25,919,740

Common stock outstanding as of March 28, 2019: 4,307,580 shares

INFORMATION CONCERNING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report contains forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are projections in respect of future events or our future financial performance. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may”, “should”, “intends”, “expects”, “will”, “plans”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “predicts”, “potential”, or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. These statements are only predictions and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, including the risks listed under the section entitled “Risk Factors” commencing on page 13 of this report, which may cause our or our industry’s actual results, levels of activity or performance to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity or performance expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements.

Table of Contents

NOTE REGARDING REFERENCES TO OUR COMPANY

Throughout this Form 10-K, the words “we,” “us,” “our,” the “Company” and “Microbot” refer to Microbot Medical Inc., including our directly and indirectly wholly-owned subsidiaries and, unless the context otherwise requires, the historical business, financial statements and operations of Microbot are of Microbot Medical Ltd., an Israeli corporation (“Microbot Israel”) which became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company on November 28, 2016. “StemCells” or “StemCells, Inc.” refers to the Company prior to its merger transaction with Microbot Israel.

PART I

Item 1. Description of Business.

The Company

Microbot is a pre-clinical medical device company specializing in the research, design and development of next generation robotic endoluminal surgery devices targeting the minimally invasive surgery space. Microbot is primarily focused on leveraging its micro-robotic technologies with the goal of improving surgical outcomes for patients.

Microbot’s current technological platforms, ViRob^TM, CardioSert^TM and TipCAT^TM, are comprised of proprietary innovative technologies. Using the ViRob platform, Microbot is currently developing its first product candidate: the Self Cleaning Shunt, or SCS^TM, for the treatment of hydrocephalus and Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus, or NPH. Although the SCS utilizes one of our platforms, we are focused on the development of a Multi Generation Pipeline Portfolio utilizing all three of our proprietary technologies.

Microbot has a patent portfolio of 30 issued/allowed patents and 21 patent applications pending worldwide.

We were incorporated on August 2, 1988 in the State of Delaware under the name Cellular Transplants, Inc. The original Certificate of Incorporation was restated on February 14, 1992 to change our name to CytoTherapeutics, Inc. On May 24, 2000, the Certificate of Incorporation as restated was further amended to change our name to StemCells, Inc. On November 28, 2016, C&RD Israel Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours, completed its merger with and into Microbot Medical Ltd., or Microbot Israel, an Israeli corporation that then owned our assets and operated our current business, with Microbot Israel surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours. We refer to this transaction as the Merger. On November 28, 2016, in connection with the Merger, we changed our name from “StemCells, Inc.” to Microbot Medical Inc., and each outstanding share of Microbot Israel capital stock was converted into the right to receive shares of our common stock. In addition, all outstanding options to purchase the ordinary shares of Microbot Israel were assumed by us and converted into options to purchase shares of the common stock of Microbot Medical Inc. On November 29, 2016, our common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “MBOT”. Prior to the Merger, we were a biopharmaceutical company that operated in one segment, the research, development, and commercialization of stem cell therapeutics and related technologies. Substantially all of the material assets relating to the stem cell business were sold on November 29, 2016.

In May 2016, we effected a 1-for-12 reverse split of our common stock, and in November 2016, we effected a 1-for-9 reverse split of our common stock in connection with the Merger. In September 2018, we effected a 1-for-15 reverse split of our common stock. The share and per share information described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K that occurred prior to these reverse splits have been adjusted to give retrospective effect to the reverse splits.

Technological Platforms

ViRob

The ViRob is an autonomous crawling micro-robot which can be controlled remotely or within the body. Its miniature dimensions are expected to allow it to navigate and crawl in different natural spaces within the human body, including blood vessels, the digestive tract and the respiratory system as well as artificial spaces such as shunts, catheters, ports, etc. Its unique structure is expected to give it the ability to move in tight spaces and curved passages as well as the ability to remain within the human body for prolonged time. The SCS product was developed using the ViRob technology.

CardioSert

On May 25, 2018, Microbot acquired a patent-protected technology from CardioSert Ltd., a privately-held medical device company based in Israel. The CardioSert technology contemplates a combination of a guidewire and microcatheter, technologies that are broadly used for surgery within a tubular organ or structure such as a blood vessel or duct. The CardioSert technology features a unique guidewire delivery system with steering and stiffness control capabilities which when developed is expected to give the physician the ability to control the tip curvature, to adjust tip load to varying degrees of stiffness in a gradually continuous manner. The CardioSert technology was originally developed to support interventional cardiologists in crossing chronic total occlusions (CTO) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures and has the potential to be used in other spaces and applications, such as peripheral intervention, and neurosurgery. CardioSert was part of a technological incubator supported by the Israel Innovation Authorities (formerly known as the Office of the Chief Scientist, or OCS), and a device based on the technology has successfully completed pre-clinical testing.

TipCAT

The TipCAT is a disposable self-propelled locomotive device that is specially designed to advance in tubular anatomies. The TipCAT is a mechanism comprising a series of interconnected balloons at the device’s tip that provides the TipCAT with its forward locomotion capability. The device can self-propel within natural tubular lumens such as the blood vessels, respiratory and the urinary and GI tracts. A single channel of air/fluid supply sequentially inflates and deflates a series of balloons creating an inchworm like forward motion. The TipCAT maintains a standard working channel for treatments. Unlike standard access devices such as guidewires, catheters for vascular access and endoscopes, the TipCAT does not need to be pushed into the patient’s lumen using external pressure; rather, it will gently advance itself through the organ’s anatomy. As a result, the TipCAT is designed to be able to reach every part of the lumen under examination regardless of the topography, be less operator dependent, and greatly reduce the likelihood of damage to lumen structure. The TipCAT thus offers functionality features equivalent to modern tubular access devices, along with advantages associated with its physiologically adapted self-propelling mechanism, flexibility, and design.

Industry Overview

CSF Management

Hydrocephalus is a medical condition in which there is an abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid, or CSF, in the brain that can cause increased intracranial pressure. It is estimated that one in every 500 babies are born with hydrocephalus, and over 1,000,000 people in the United States currently live with hydrocephalus.

Symptoms of hydrocephalus vary with age, disease progression and individual tolerance to the condition, but they can include convulsion, tunnel vision, mental disability or dementia-like symptoms and even death. NPH is a type of hydrocephalus that usually occurs in older adults. NPH is generally treated as distinct from other types of hydrocephalus because it develops slowly over time. In NPH, the drainage of CSF is blocked gradually and the excess fluid builds up slowly. This slow accumulation means that the fluid pressure may not be as high as in other types of hydrocephalus. It is estimated that more than 700,000 Americans have NPH, but less than 20% receive an appropriate diagnosis.

Hydrocephalus is most often treated by the surgical insertion of a shunt system. The shunt system diverts the flow of CSF from the brain’s ventricles (or the lumbar subarachnoid space) to another part of the body where the fluid can be more readily absorbed. Hydrocephalus shunt designs have changed little since their introduction in the 1950s. A shunt system typically consists of three parts: the distal tubing or shunt (a flexible and sturdy plastic tube), the ventricular catheter (the proximal catheter), and a valve. The end of the shunt system with the proximal catheter is placed in the ventricles (within the CSF) and the distal catheter is placed in the site of the body where the CSF can be drained. A valve is located along the shunt to maintain and regulate the rate of CSF flow. Current systems can be created from separate components or bought as complete units.

The treatment of hydrocephalus with existing shunt systems often includes complications. For example, approximately 50% of shunts used in the pediatric population fail within two years of placement and repeated neurosurgical operations are often required. Ventricular catheter blockage, or occlusion, is by far the most frequent event that results in shunt failure. Shunt occlusion occurs when there is a partial or complete blockage of the shunt that causes it to function intermittently or not at all. Such a shunt blockage can be caused by the accumulation of blood cells, tissue, or bacteria in any part of the shunt system. In the event of shunt occlusion, CSF begins to accumulate in the brain or lumbar region again and the symptoms of untreated hydrocephalus can reappear until a shunt replacement surgery is performed.

Although several companies are active in the field of hydrocephalus treatment and the manufacturing of shunt systems and shunt components, Microbot believes that the majority of those companies are focusing on the development of valves. The development of a “smart shunt” – a shunt that could provide data to the physician on patient conditions and shunt function with sensor-based controls, or correct the high failure rate of existing shunt systems – is for the most part at an academic and conceptual level only. Reports of smart shunt technologies are typically focused on a subset of components with remaining factors left unspecified, such as hardware, control algorithms or power management. Microbot does not believe that a smart shunt that can prevent functional failures has been developed to date. Because of the limited innovation in this area, Microbot believes an opportunity exists to provide patients suffering from hydrocephalus or NPH with a more effective instrument for treating their condition.

An alternative, short-term solution to hydrocephalus is the implantation of an External Ventricular Drainage, or EVD, an implanted device used in neurosurgery for the short-term treatment and monitoring of elevated intracranial pressure when the normal flow of CSF inside the brain is obstructed. If after using an EVD, the underlying hydrocephalus does not eventually resolve, the EVD may then be converted to a cerebral shunt, a fully internalized, long-term treatment for hydrocephalus.

EVDs are also used in other instances when the normal flow of CSF inside the brain is obstructed, such as a result of head trauma, intracerebral hemorrhage, brain tumors and infection. The EVD serves to divert excess fluids from the brain and allows for the monitoring of intracranial pressure. An EVD must be placed in a center with full neurosurgical capabilities because immediate neurosurgical intervention may be needed if a complication of EVD placement, such as bleeding, is encountered. EVD is one of the most commonly used and most important life-saving procedures in the neurologic ICU, with more than 200,000 neuro-intensive patients requiring EVD insertions annually.

Similar to shunts, EVDs are also prone to occlusion, mostly due to cellular debris, such as blood clots and/or tissue fragments. Studies have shown that approximately 1-7% of EVDs require replacement secondary to occlusion. Current solutions for EVD occlusion include irrigation and replacement, which we believe may be ineffective (in the case of irrigation) or costly (in the case of replacement) and in either case, put the patient at risk of unintended side effects. Microbot believes that with its portfolio of technologies, and its initial pre-clinical results, it is well-positioned to explore and expand its offerings as an alternative solution for EVD occlusion.

Minimally Invasive Endovascular Neurosurgery

Minimally Invasive Surgery, or MIS, refers to surgical procedures performed through tiny incisions instead of a single large opening. Because the incisions are small, patients tend to have quicker recovery times and experience less trauma than with conventional surgery. The global MIS market is expected to exceed $50 billion by 2019, with a CAGR of over 20% through 2023. MIS involves three major category of devices: surgical, monitoring and visualization, and endoscopy. The market for surgical devices, including ablation, electrosurgery and medical robotic systems, accounts for the largest share of revenue and is also expected to show the highest rate of growth.

As a subset of MIS, endovascular neurosurgery refers to surgeries performed by using devices that pass through the blood vessels to diagnose and treat neurological diseases and conditions such as stroke, arteriovenous malformations, aneurysms and atherosclerosis, rather than using open surgery.

The global neurovascular device market was valued at $1.62 billion in 2015 and is expected to reach a value of $2.92 billion by 2024, growing at a CAGR of 6.5%. Increases in the geriatric population and a rise in the number of patients suffering from neurovascular disorders, implementation of advanced technological platforms, and favorable reimbursement policies across established markets are expected to drive this market’s growth. On the other hand, the high cost of the endovascular devices and scarcity of neurovascular surgeons may impede such growth.

Stroke is a devastating condition, affecting 33 million people worldwide every year. In the United States alone, there are nearly 800,000 instances of stroke yearly, with about three in four being first-time strokes. This number is expected to increase to one million annually in 2021. Stroke is the fifth leading cause of death in the United States and is a leading cause of long-term disability, with related care costs estimated at $70 billion annually.

Mechanical thrombectomy has only been approved as a first-line treatment for ischemic stroke since 2016. Prior to such approval, chemical thrombolysis using tissue plasminogen activators was the only first-line treatment available, limiting the therapeutic window for ischemic stroke patients to as little as 3-4 hours from the onset of symptoms. With mechanical thrombectomy, treatment can be started within 6-24 hours of the time the patient was last known to be well. The US mechanical thrombectomy market is projected to grow at a CAGR of 23.9% between 2014-2020, to reach a value over $350 million.

According to the Brain Aneurysm Foundation, an estimated 6 million people in the United States have an unruptured brain aneurysm, or 1 in 50 people. The annual rate of rupture is approximately 8 – 10 per 100,000 people, or about 30,000 people in the United States annually. Embolic coiling is the established gold-standard treatment for aneurysms, and the most established product line in the neurovascular market – it is a strong but relatively stagnant market, projected to grow at a CAGR of 1.7% between 2014-2020, to reach a value of over $800 million. New devices that improve treatment of complex aneurysms, such as embolization-enabling stents, bifurcations stents, flow-diversion stents, liquid embolics and intrasaccular devices, are expected to boost market growth.

The major companies in the field of neurovascular devices include Stryker Corporation, Medtronic Plc., Cerenovus (Johnson & Johnson), Terumo Corporation and Penumbra, Inc. Neurovascular access devices are the means for delivering neurovascular treatment tools and devices from an opening in the femoral or radial arteries into the brain vasculature. Such access devices include sheaths, guidewires and microcatheters. Wires and catheters account for 18.6% of the overall neurovascular market.

Navigating and placing access devices through tortuous and highly delicate brain arteries is a complex procedure that requires high-level surgical skills with specialist training. In many procedures, surgeons exchange numerous access devices before reaching the target and applying the therapeutic agent or device, increasing the risk of adverse events and the exposure of both patient and physician to radiation. Adverse events, such as perforation of brain arteries or the release of embolies from a thrombus or atherosclerotic lesion can have devastating or even fatal results.

Microbot believes that with its portfolio of technologies specifically CardioSert and TipCAT, it is well-positioned to explore and develop such technologies as neurovascular access devices, with a focus on improving the ease and access and enhancing the safety of endovascular neurosurgery.

Our Product Pipeline

Self-Cleaning Shunt

The SCS device is designed to act as the ventricular catheter portion of a CSF shunt system that is used to relieve hydrocephalus and NPH. It is designed to work as an alternative to any ventricular catheter options currently on the market and to connect to all existing shunt system valves currently on the market; therefore, the successful commercialization of the SCS is not dependent on any single shunt system. Initially, Microbot expects the SCS device to be an aftermarket purchase that would be deployed to modify existing products by the end user. Microbot believes that the use of its SCS device will be able to reduce, and potentially eliminate, shunt occlusions, and by doing so, Microbot believes its SCS has the potential to become the gold standard ventricular shunt in the treatment of hydrocephalus and NPH.

The SCS device embeds an internal robotic cleaning mechanism in the lumen, or inside space, of the ventricular catheter which prevents cell accumulation and tissue ingrowth into the catheter. The SCS device consists of a silicone tube with a perforated titanium tip, which connects to a standard shunt valve at its distal end. The internal cleaning mechanism is embedded in the lumen of the titanium tip. Once activated, the cleaning mechanism keeps tissue from entering the catheter perforations while maintaining the CSF flow in the ventricular catheter.

The internal cleaning mechanism of the SCS device is activated by means of an induced magnetic field, which is currently designed to be externally generated by the patient through a user-friendly headset that transmits the magnetic field at a pre-determined frequency and operating sequence protocol. The magnetic field that is created by the headset is then captured by a flexible coil and circuit board that is placed just under the patient’s scalp in the location where the valve is located. The circuit board assembly converts the magnetic field into the power necessary to activate the cleaning mechanism within the proximal part of the ventricular catheter.

Microbot has completed the development of an SCS prototype and is currently continuing the safety testing, general proof of concept testing and performance testing for the device, which Microbot began in mid-2013. In May 2018, Microbot announced the results of two pre-clinical studies assessing the SCS, an in-vitro study and a small animal study. The in-vitro study, which was performed at Wayne State University by Dr. Carolyn Harris, supports the SCS’s potential as a viable technology for preventing occlusion in shunts used to treat hydrocephalus. The animal study designed to assess the safety profile of the SCS, which was performed by James Patterson McAllister, PhD, a Professor of Neurosurgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, met the primary goal to determine the safety of the SCS device that aims to prevent obstruction in CSF catheters. Since the completion of these initial studies, Microbot has commenced a follow-up study to further evaluate the safety and to investigate the efficacy of the SCS. The follow-up study is also being conducted by leading hydrocephalus experts at Washington University and Wayne State University. The study will include a larger sample size compared to the initial studies and the primary and secondary endpoints will seek to validate the safety and efficacy of the SCS that will be activated in both in-vitro (lab) and in-vivo (animal) models. Microbot plans to use the findings for initial regulatory submissions in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions, although upon the completion of animal studies, Microbot may conduct clinical trials if they are requested by the FDA or if Microbot decides that the data from such trials would improve the marketability of the product candidate.

In conjunction with initiating this follow-up study, Microbot also contracted with Envigo CRS Israel, a leading provider of non-clinical contract research services, to conduct an in-vitro study designed to evaluate the operational performance of the SCS. The Envigo study used human brain glioblastoma cells in order to assess the performance of the SCS in a test system with accelerated cell growth, accumulation, and obstruction rates. The performance of a constantly activated (always-on) SCS to prevent shunt occlusion in the laboratory study was compared with a non-operating SCS after 30 days, and the results were captured with photographs shared by Microbot in a press release issued on January 14, 2019. While significant cell growth and accumulation was seen in the cell cultures with a non-operating SCS, the shunt openings within the cells seeded with a constantly operating SCS remained clear, with little to no cell attachment on the robotic brush (ViRob) and on the opening where the robotic brush (ViRob) operates after 30 days of cell culturing and growth. We believe this experiment validates the operational effectiveness of the SCS to prevent shunt occlusion and provides additional data to support the device’s proof of concept. We believe the in-vitro laboratory study further confirms that the SCS has the ability to operate after cells have accumulated on the catheter holes and the robotic brush (ViRob) and to potentially disintegrate existing occlusions formed on the robotic brush (ViRob) and on the opening where the robotic brush (ViRob) operates, based on the results from a third test group in which cells were allowed to grow for 4 weeks and then exposed to an activated SCS device. The images captured by Envigo and Microbot demonstrate that the cleaning mechanism of the SCS is powerful enough to clear accumulated cells at blocked pores, as significant improvements were observed in the degree of shunt obstruction after only a short period of time following activation of the SCS.

Microbot believes that the animal study results of its first generation SCS device should be available during the second half of 2019 and we expect to submit that data to the FDA as part of a pre-submission meeting request. The proposed indication for use of the SCS device would be for the treatment of hydrocephalus and/or NPH as a component of a shunt system when draining or shunting of CSF is indicated. It continues to be possible that the FDA could require us to conduct a human clinical study to support the safety and efficacy of the SCS and that such clinical data would need to be part of the future regulatory submission to authorize marketing of the medical device in the U.S.

Microbot may also conduct clinical trials for the SCS in other countries where such trials are necessary for Microbot to sell its SCS device in such country’s market, although it has no current plans to do so.

TipCAT

A TipCAT prototype was shown to self-propel and self-navigate in curved plastic pipes and curved ex-vivo colon. In addition, in its first feasibility study, the prototype device was tested in a live animal experiment and successfully self-propelled through segments of the animal’s colon, with no post-procedural damage. All tests were conducted at AMIT (Alfred Mann Institute of Technology at the Technion), prior to the licensing of TipCAT by Microbot.

Currently, Microbot is not pursuing the development of the TipCAT as a colonoscopy tool due to its focus on the endovascular neurosurgery space, and as such it is currently exploring the use of the TipCAT for minimally invasive endovascular neurosurgical applications to complement its other technologies.

CardioSert

CardioSert was part of a technological incubator supported by the Israel Innovation Authorities (formerly known as the Office of the Chief Scientist, or OCS), and a device based on the technology has successfully completed pre-clinical testing. Although the CardioSert technology was originally developed to support interventional cardiologists in crossing chronic total occlusions (CTO) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures, it has the potential to be used in other spaces and applications, such as neurosurgery which Microbot will be focusing on.

Strategy

Microbot’s goal is to generate sales of its products, once they have received regulatory approval, by establishing SCS and TipCAT devices as the standard-of-care in the eyes of doctors, surgeons, patients and medical facilities, as well as getting the support of payors and insurance companies. Microbot believes that it can achieve this objective by working with hospitals to demonstrate the key benefits of its products. Microbot’s strategy includes the following key elements:

SCS Opportunities

The SCS is designed to prevent shunt occlusions in hydrocephalus and NPH patients who have undergone or are undergoing the surgical insertion of a shunt system. For purposes of its marketing strategy, Microbot has split the market for shunt systems into two sub-markets:

Microbot’s SCS device is universal (meaning that it is designed to be attachable to any valve on the market); therefore, Microbot’s initial go-to-market strategy is the development of strategic partnerships with leading global medical device companies with ready sales and distribution channels. Outside of a strategic partnership, it is most likely that Microbot’s SCS product will be initially used in shunt replacement surgeries to replace occluded ventricular catheters. Accordingly, Microbot intends to establish key hospital and clinic relationships that will allow it to diffuse the technology among experts and other stakeholders. Microbot is also planning to apply for the SCS device to be covered under the current reimbursement codes in the United States for use in hydrocephalus and NPH shunt procedures.

TipCAT Opportunities

Microbot is currently exploring the use of the TipCAT for minimally invasive endovascular neurosurgical applications.

CardioSert Opportunities

Microbot is currently exploring the use of the CardioSert for minimally invasive endovascular neurosurgical applications.

Competition

SCS Competitive Landscape

Several academic research groups, such as at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, are currently researching sensing and obstruction-resistant catheter designs, and the Smart Sensors and Integrated Microsystems (SSIM) Program at Wayne State University has publicized that it is engaging in smart shunt development activity. However, based on its knowledge of the patented technologies, Microbot believes that these technologies are still early in the research and development cycle. The SCS also faces non-direct competition from Aqueduct Neurosciences, Inc., which is developing a non-shunt, electro-mechanical technology platform to control the draining of cerebrospinal fluid.

Microbot does not expect its SCS device to directly compete against shunt systems currently available in the market. The SCS device is designed to replace a component of existing shunt systems and is expected to be an aftermarket purchase that would be used to modify existing products by the end user. However, there can be no assurance that Microbot’s product candidate will be accepted by the shunt market as an alternative component.

TipCAT Competitive Landscape

Microbot is currently exploring the use of the TipCAT for minimally invasive endovascular neurosurgical applications and has not at this time completed its evaluation of the competitive landscape for such uses.

Some of Microbot’s competitors currently have significantly greater resources than Microbot does; have established relationships with healthcare professionals, customers and third-party payors; and have long-term contracts with group purchasing organizations in the United States. In addition, many of Microbot’s competitors have established distributor networks, greater resources for product development, sales and marketing, additional lines of products and the ability to offer financial incentives such as rebates, bundled products or discounts on other product lines that Microbot cannot provide.

Microbot’s products could also be rendered obsolete or uneconomical by technological advances developed in the future by existing or new competitors.

Intellectual Property

General

The SCS and TipCAT are based on technological platforms licensed from The Technion Research and Development Foundation Ltd., or TRDF, as further discussed below. Microbot plans to develop other micro-robotic solutions through internal research and development, to strengthen its intellectual property position, and to continue exploring strategic collaborations and accretive acquisition opportunities. Microbot currently holds an intellectual property portfolio of 31 issued/allowed patents and 20 patent applications.

Microbot relies or intends to rely on intellectual property licensed or developed, including patents, trade secrets, trademarks, technical innovations, laws of unfair competition and various licensing agreements, to provide its future growth, to build its competitive position and to protect its technology. As Microbot continues to expand its intellectual property portfolio, it is critical for Microbot to continue to invest in filing patent applications to protect its technology, inventions, and improvements.

Microbot requires its employees and consultants to execute confidentiality agreements in connection with their employment or consulting relationships with Microbot. Microbot also requires its employees and consultants who work on its product candidates to agree to disclose and assign to Microbot all inventions conceived during the term of their service, while using Microbot property, or which relate to Microbot’s business.

Patent applications in the United States and in foreign countries are maintained in secrecy for a period of time after filing, which results in a delay between the filing date of the patent applications and the time when they are published. Patents issued and patent applications filed relating to medical devices are numerous, and there can be no assurance that current and potential competitors and other third parties have not filed or in the future will not file applications for, or have not received or in the future will not receive, patents or obtain additional proprietary rights relating to product candidates, products, devices or processes used or proposed to be used by Microbot. Microbot believes that the technologies it employs in its products and systems do not infringe the valid claims of any third-party patents. There can be no assurance, however, that third parties will not seek to assert that Microbot devices and systems infringe their patents or seek to expand their patent claims to cover aspects of Microbot’s products and systems.

The medical device industry in general has been characterized by substantial litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Any such claims, regardless of their merit, could be time-consuming and expensive to respond to and could divert Microbot’s technical and management personnel. Microbot may be involved in litigation to defend against claims of infringement by other patent holders, to enforce patents issued to Microbot, or to protect Microbot’s trade secrets. If any relevant claims of third-party patents are upheld as valid and enforceable in any litigation or administrative proceeding, Microbot could be prevented from practicing the subject matter claimed in such patents, or would be required to obtain licenses from the patent owners of each such patent, or to redesign Microbot’s products, devices or processes to avoid infringement. There can be no assurance that such licenses would be available or, if available, would be available on terms acceptable to Microbot or that Microbot would be successful in any attempt to redesign products or processes to avoid infringement. Accordingly, an adverse determination in a judicial or administrative proceeding or failure to obtain necessary licenses, could potentially prevent Microbot from manufacturing and selling its products.

Microbot’s issued U.S. patents, which cover Microbot’s product candidates, will expire between 2026 and 2033, not including any patent term adjustments that may be available. Issued patents outside of the United States directed to Microbot’s product candidates will expire between 2026 and 2032.

License Agreement with the Technion

In June 2012, Microbot entered into a license agreement with TRDF, the technology transfer subsidiary of The Technion Institute of Technology, pursuant to which it obtained an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license to certain patents and inventions relating to the SCS and TipCAT technology platforms invented by Professor Moshe Shoham, a director of and advisor to the Company, and in certain circumstances other TRDF-related persons. Pursuant to the terms of the license agreement, in order to maintain the license with respect to each platform, Microbot must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop products covered by the license, including meeting certain agreed upon development milestones. The milestones for SCS include commencing initial studies in humans by December 2019. The milestones for TipCAT include commencing initial studies in humans, if needed, by December 2019 and commencing a full clinical trial, if necessary, by December 2020. Failure to meet any development milestone will give TRDF the right to terminate the license with respect to the technology underlying the missed milestone. Although Microbot expects to meet the milestone requirements, TRDF has demonstrated flexibility with respect to amending the terms of the license to extend the milestone dates.

As partial consideration for the grant of the licenses under the agreement, Microbot issued a number of shares to TRDF equal to 3% of its issued and outstanding shares at such time on a fully diluted basis. Such shares were initially subject to antidilution protections but are no longer subject to adjustment. In addition, as partial consideration for the licenses granted, Microbot agreed to pay TRDF royalties of between 1.5% and 3.0% of net sales of products covered by the licenses, subject to certain reductions, and certain percentages of amounts received by Microbot in the event of sublicensing.

In the case of termination of the license by Microbot without cause or by TRDF for cause, TRDF has the right to receive a non-exclusive license from Microbot with respect to improvements to the licensed technologies made by Microbot. In such cases, TRDF would pay a royalty of 10% of the income received by TRDF in connection its sublicensing of such patent right and related intellectual property. If the license from TRDF were to be terminated with respect with either of the technology platforms underlying the SCS or the TipCAT, Microbot would no longer be able to continue its development of the related product candidate. However, Microbot believes that its current intellectual property portfolio, and its ongoing efforts to expand into other micro-robotic surgical technologies, will give it the flexibility to shift its resources towards developing and commercializing related products.

Research and Development

Microbot’s research and development programs are generally pursued by engineers and scientists employed by Microbot in its offices in Israel on a full-time basis or as consultants, or through partnerships with industry leaders in manufacturing and design and researchers in academia. Microbot is also working with subcontractors in developing specific components of its technologies.

The primary objectives of Microbot’s research and development efforts are to continue to introduce incremental enhancements to the capabilities of its candidate products and to advance the development of proposed products.

Microbot has received funds from the Israeli Innovation Authority (formerly known as the Office of the Chief Scientist in Israel), for research and development activities. Microbot received a grant from the Israeli Innovation Authority in 2012, which grant reimbursed Microbot for 50% of its research and development expenses, up to $764,466. This first grant from the Israeli Innovation Authority ended in 2014. After the expiration of the first grant, Microbot received approval for an additional grant from the Israeli Innovation Authority which reimbursed Microbot for 50% of its research and development expenses for the period from May 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015, up to $924,166. After the expiration of the second grant, Microbot received an approval for a third grant from the Israeli Innovation Authority which reimbursed Microbot for 50% of its research and development expenses for the period from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017, up to $1,026,050.

In November 2017, Microbot was awarded an additional non-dilutive grant of up to 2,610,000 Israeli New Shekels (approximately $735,000) from the Israel Innovation Authority, of which up to 2,198,000 NIS are at a reimbursement rate of 40% and up to 412,000 NIS are at a reimbursement rate of 30%. The grant provided additional sources that were utilized by Microbot for the continued development of the SCS for the treatment of hydrocephalus and Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus. The grant funds were used for or applied towards a number of research and development expenses, such as employees’ salaries, research and development expenses (including materials, as well as professional and consulting fees). The recoveries are recognized in the corresponding period when such expenses are incurred. For this grant, we received from the IIA a total of 991,008 NIS. The last installment of this reimbursement was received by Microbot in December 2018. No additional payments are expected from this grant. With respect to such grants from the IIA, Microbot is committed to pay royalties, as, if and when it successfully commercializes the SCS and generates revenue from sales of the SCS, at a rate of between 3% to 3.5% on sales proceeds up to the total amount of grants received, linked to the dollar, plus interest at an annual rate of USD LIBOR. Under the terms of the grants and applicable law, Microbot is restricted from transferring any technologies, know-how, manufacturing or manufacturing rights developed using the grant outside of Israel without the prior approval of the Israel Innovation Authority. Microbot has no obligation to repay the grant, if the SCS project fails, is unsuccessful or aborted before any sales are generated. The financial risk is assumed completely by the IIA.

Microbot expects to continue to access government funding in the future.

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, Microbot incurred research and development expenses of approximately $2,515,000 compared to research and development expenses of approximately $1,100,000 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Microbot has already made plans to develop a second version of its SCS device that will have an embedded controller and battery, initially to support its animal trials. This alternative design will allow the cleaning mechanism to be automatically activated, without the need for the patient’s involvement in the activation process.

Microbot has completed the development of an SCS prototype and is currently completing the safety testing, general proof of concept testing and performance testing for the device, which Microbot began in mid-2013. In May 2018, Microbot announced the results of two pre-clinical studies assessing the SCS, an in-vitro study and a small animal study. The in-vitro study, which was performed at Wayne State University by Dr. Carolyn Harris, supports the SCS’s potential as a viable technology for preventing occlusion in shunts used to treat hydrocephalus. The animal study designed to assess the safety profile of the SCS, which was performed by James Patterson McAllister, PhD, a Professor of Neurosurgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, met the primary goal to determine the safety of the SCS device that aims to prevent obstruction in CSF catheters. Since the completion of these initial studies, Microbot has commenced a follow-up study to further evaluate the safety and to investigate the efficacy of the SCS. The follow-up study is also being conducted by leading hydrocephalus experts at Washington University and Wayne State University. The study will include a larger sample size compared to the initial studies and the primary and secondary endpoints will seek to validate the safety and efficacy of the SCS that will be activated in both in-vitro (lab) and in-vivo (animal) models. Microbot plans to use the findings for initial regulatory submissions in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions, although upon the completion of animal studies, Microbot may conduct clinical trials if they are requested by the FDA or if Microbot decides that the data from such trials would improve the marketability of the product candidate.

In conjunction with initiating this follow-up study, Microbot also contracted with Envigo CRS Israel, a leading provider of non-clinical contract research services, to conduct an in-vitro study designed to evaluate the operational performance of the SCS. The Envigo study used human brain glioblastoma cells in order to assess the performance of the SCS in a test system with accelerated cell growth, accumulation, and obstruction rates. The performance of a constantly activated (always-on) SCS to prevent shunt occlusion in the laboratory study was compared with a non-operating SCS after 30 days, and the results were captured with photographs shared by Microbot in a press release issued on January 14, 2019. While significant cell growth and accumulation was seen in the cell cultures with a non-operating SCS, the shunt openings within the cells seeded with a constantly operating SCS remained clear, with little to no cell attachment on the robotic brush (ViRob) and on the opening where the robotic brush (ViRob) operates after 30 days of cell culturing and growth. We believe this experiment validates the operational effectiveness of the SCS to prevent shunt occlusion and provides additional data to support the device’s proof of concept. We believe the in-vitro laboratory study further confirms that the SCS has the ability to operate after cells have accumulated on the catheter holes and the robotic brush (ViRob) and to potentially disintegrate existing occlusions formed on the robotic brush (ViRob) and on the opening where the robotic brush (ViRob) operates, based on the results from a third test group in which cells were allowed to grow for 4 weeks and then exposed to an activated SCS device. The images captured by Envigo and Microbot demonstrate that the cleaning mechanism of the SCS is powerful enough to clear accumulated cells at blocked pores, as significant improvements were observed in the degree of shunt obstruction after only a short period of time following activation of the SCS.

Microbot believes that the animal study results of its first generation SCS device should be available during the second half of 2019 and we expect to submit that data to the FDA as part of a pre-submission meeting request. The proposed indication for use of the SCS device would be for the treatment of hydrocephalus as a component of a shunt system when draining or shunting of CSF is indicated. It continues to be possible that the FDA could require us to conduct a human clinical study to support the safety and efficacy of the SCS and that such clinical data would need to be part of the future regulatory submission to authorize marketing of the medical device in the U.S.

Manufacturing

Microbot does not have any manufacturing facilities or manufacturing personnel. Microbot currently relies, and expects to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacturing of its product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacturing if its product candidates receive marketing approval.

Commercialization

Microbot has not yet established a sales, marketing or product distribution infrastructure for its product candidates, which are still in development stages. Microbot plans to access the U.S. markets for hydrocephalus and NPH with its initial device offerings through strategic partnerships but may develop its own focused, specialized sales force or distribution channels once it has several commercialized products in its portfolio. Microbot has not yet developed a commercial strategy outside of the United States.

Government Regulation

General

Microbot’s medical technology products and operations are subject to extensive regulation in the United States and other countries. Most notably, if Microbot seeks to sell its products in the United States, its products will be subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) as implemented and enforced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA regulates the development, bench and clinical testing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, record-keeping, promotion, marketing, sales, distribution and post-market support and reporting of medical devices in the United States to ensure that medical products distributed domestically are safe and effective for their intended uses. Regulatory policy affecting its products can change at any time.

Advertising and promotion of medical devices in the United States, 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.

Foreign countries where Microbot wishes to sell its products may require similar or more onerous approvals to manufacture or market its products. Government agencies in those countries also enforce laws and regulations that govern the development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, advertising, marketing and distribution, and market surveillance of medical device products. These regulatory requirements can change rapidly with relatively short notice.

Other regulations Microbot encounters in the United States and in other jurisdictions are the regulations that are common to all businesses, such as employment legislation, implied warranty laws, and environmental, health and safety standards, to the extent applicable. In the future, Microbot will also encounter industry-specific government regulations that would govern its products, if and when they are developed for commercial use.

U.S. Regulation

The FDA governs the following activities that Microbot performs, will perform, upon the clearance or approval of its product candidates, or that are performed on its behalf, to ensure that medical products distributed domestically or exported internationally are safe and effective for their intended uses:

There are numerous FDA regulatory requirements governing the approval or clearance and subsequent commercial marketing of Microbot’s products. These include:

Unless an exemption applies, before Microbot can commercially distribute medical devices in the United States, Microbot must obtain, depending on the classification of the device, either prior 510(k) clearance, 510(k) de-novo clearance or premarket approval (PMA), from the FDA. The FDA classifies medical devices into one of three classes based on the degree of risk associated with each medical device and the extent of regulatory controls needed to ensure the device’s safety and effectiveness:

Microbot expect the medical products in its pipeline currently to be classified as Class II. Class II devices are those for which general controls alone are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness and there is sufficient information to establish special controls. Special controls can include performance standards, post-market surveillance, patient histories and FDA guidance documents. Premarket review and clearance by the FDA for these devices is generally accomplished through the 510(k) or 510(k) de-novo premarket notification process. As part of the 510(k) or 510(k) de-novo notification process, FDA may require the following:

Clinical trials involve use of the medical device on human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with current Good Clinical Practices (GCPs), including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent for their participation in the clinical study. A written protocol with predefined end points, an appropriate sample size and pre-determined patient inclusion and exclusion criteria, is required before initiating and conducting a clinical trial. All clinical investigations of devices to determine safety and effectiveness must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s Investigational device Exemption, or IDE, regulations that among other things, govern investigational device labeling, prohibit promotion of the investigational device, and specify recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring responsibilities of study sponsors and study investigators. If the device presents a “significant risk,” as defined by the FDA, the agency requires the device sponsor to submit an IDE application, which must become effective prior to commencing human clinical trials. The IDE will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA denies the application or notifies the company that the investigation is on hold and may not begin. If the FDA determines that there are deficiencies or other concerns with an IDE that requires modification, the FDA may permit a clinical trial to proceed under a conditional approval. In addition, the study must be approved by, and conducted under the oversight of, an Institutional Review Board (IRB) for each clinical site. If the device presents a non-significant risk to the patient, a sponsor may begin the clinical trial after obtaining approval for the trial by one or more IRBs without separate approval from the FDA, but it must still follow abbreviated IDE requirements, such as monitoring the investigation, ensuring that the investigators obtain informed consent, and labeling and record-keeping requirements. 510(k) clearance typically involves the following:

After a device receives 510(k) clearance from FDA, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use or technological characteristics, requires a new 510(k) clearance or could require a PMA. The FDA requires each manufacturer to make the determination of whether a modification requires a new 510(k) notification or PMA in the first instance, but the FDA can review any such decision. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s decision not to seek a new 510(k) clearance or PMA for a particular change, the FDA may retroactively require the manufacturer to seek 510(k) clearance or PMA. The FDA can also require the manufacturer to cease U.S. marketing and/or recall the modified device until additional 510(k) clearance or PMA approval is obtained.

The FDA and the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, will also regulate the advertising claims of Microbot’s products to ensure that the claims Microbot makes are consistent with its regulatory clearances, that there is scientific data to substantiate the claims and that product advertising is neither false nor misleading.

To obtain 510(k) clearance, Microbot must submit a notification to the FDA demonstrating that its proposed device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device (i.e., a device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, a device that has been reclassified from Class III to Class I or Class II, or a 510(k)-cleared device). The FDA’s 510(k) clearance process generally takes from three to 12 months from the date the application is submitted but also can take significantly longer. If the FDA determines that the device or its intended use is not substantially equivalent to a predicate device, the device is automatically placed into Class III, requiring the submission of a PMA.

There is no guarantee that the FDA will grant Microbot 510(k) clearance for its pipeline medical device products, and failure to obtain the necessary clearances for its products would adversely affect Microbot’s ability to grow its business. Delays in receipt or failure to receive the necessary clearances, or the failure to comply with existing or future regulatory requirements, could reduce its business prospects.

Devices that cannot be cleared through the 510(k) process due to lack of a predicate device but would be considered low or moderate risk may be eligible for the 510(k) de-novo process. In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, or FDAMA added the de novo classification pathway now codified in section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. This law established an alternate pathway to classify new devices into Class I or II that had automatically been placed in Class III after receiving a Not Substantially Equivalent, or NSE, determination in response to a 510(k) submission. Through this regulatory process, a sponsor who receives an NSE determination may, within 30 days of receipt, request FDA to make a risk-based classification of the device through what is called a “de novo request.” In 2012, section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act was amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), in order to provide a second option for de novo classification. Under this second pathway, a sponsor who determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence can submit a de novo request to FDA without first submitting a 510(k).

In the event that Microbot receives a Not Substantially Equivalent determination for either of its device candidates in response to a 510(k) submission, the Microbot device may still be eligible for the 510(k) de-novo classification process.

Devices that cannot be cleared through the 510(k) or 510(k) de-novo classification process require the submission of a PMA. The PMA process is much more time consuming and demanding than the 510(k) notification process. A PMA must be supported by extensive data, including but not limited to data obtained from preclinical and/or clinical studies and data relating to manufacturing and labeling, to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device. After a PMA application is submitted, the FDA’s in-depth review of the information generally takes between one and three years and may take significantly longer. If the FDA does not grant 510(k) clearance to its products, there is no guarantee that Microbot will submit a PMA or that if Microbot does, that the FDA would grant a PMA approval of Microbot’s products, either of which would adversely affect Microbot’s business.

Microbot is currently evaluating whether it is appropriate for it to seek 510(k) clearance, given the technological features of the SCS device and the FDA’s recent announcements about enhancing the 510(k) process to further ensure safety and efficacy. However, the Company believes that given the similarities between the SCS and some cleared predicate devices, there is a reasonable likelihood that a de novo application might be acceptable to the FDA.

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, Microbot will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials, marketing authorization and commercial sales and distribution of its products in foreign countries. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval or clearance. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country.

International sales of medical devices are subject to foreign governmental regulations which vary substantially from country to country. Whether or not Microbot obtains FDA approval or clearance for its products, Microbot will be required to make new regulatory submissions to the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before Microbot can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in such countries. The time required to obtain certification or approval by a foreign country may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA clearance or approval, and the requirements may differ. Below are summaries of the regulatory systems for medical devices in Europe and Israel, where Microbot currently anticipates marketing its products. However, its products may also be marketed in other countries that have different systems or minimal requirements for medical devices.

Europe. The primary regulatory body in Europe is the European Union, or E.U., which consists of 28 member states and has a coordinated system for the authorization of medical devices.

The E.U. has adopted legislation, in the form of directives to be implemented in each member state, concerning the regulation of medical devices within the European Union. The directives include, among others, the Medical Device Directive, or MDD, that establishes certain requirements with which medical devices must comply before they can be commercialized in the European Economic Area, or EEA (which comprises the member states of the E.U. plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland). Under the MDD, medical devices are classified into four Classes, I, IIa, IIb, and III, with Class I being the lowest risk and Class III being the highest risk. However, the E.U. authorities, including the European Commission, do not have direct regulatory over medical device manufacturers under the MDD. Rather, the MDD directs E.U. Member States to implement laws and regulations consistent with the provisions set forth in the directive.

Under the MDD, to demonstrate compliance of a medical device with the essential requirements, manufacturers must undergo a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical device and its classification. An accredited body known as a “Notified Body”, which is an entity designated by an E.U. Member State (or competent authority) to perform conformity assessments, will typically audit and examine the manufacturer’s quality system for the production, quality, design and final inspection of the medical devices and review a Technical File containing technical documents regarding the device, including but limited to, detailed device description, manufacturing information, preclinical and clinical tests, risk analysis, compliance with essential requirements, etc., before issuing a certification demonstrating compliance with the essential requirements. Medical devices that comply with the essential requirements are entitled to bear the Conformité Européene, or CE Mark. Medical devices properly bearing the CE Mark may be commercially distributed throughout the EEA. Under the MDD, notified bodies are also charged with performing periodic inspections to verify that a manufacturer’s quality system, particularly the production and quality controls, is adequately executed and maintained.

In addition, the MDD requires all medical device manufacturers to inform the competent authorities of their respective Member States of the address(es) of any business facilities and descriptions of any certified medical device products. The MDD also requires manufacturers to file vigilance reports in the event a device malfunction, deterioration in performance, or inadequate instructions or labeling results in, or could lead to, death or serious harm to a patient.

In September 2012, the European Commission published proposals for the revision of the EU regulatory framework for medical devices. The proposal would replace the MDD with a new regulation, the Medical Devices Regulation, or MDR. Unlike the MDD that must be implemented into national laws, the Medical Devices Regulation would be directly applicable in all EEA member states and so is intended to eliminate current national differences in regulation of medical devices. E.U. lawmakers published a revised draft of the proposed MDR in June 2016, which continues to be discussed within the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament.

Final formal adoption is expected both by the European Council and the European Parliament during the second quarter of 2017. If finally adopted, the MDR is expected to become applicable three years thereafter. The adoption of the MDR may, however, be materially delayed due to disagreements about specific portions of the regulation, as well as the implementation process. In its current form it would, among other things, impose additional reporting requirements on manufacturers of high risk medical devices, impose an obligation on manufacturers to appoint a “qualified person” responsible for regulatory compliance, and provide for more strict clinical evidence requirements. These new rules and procedures will likely result in increased regulatory oversight of all medical devices marketed in the E.U., and this may, in turn, increase the costs, time and requirements that need to be met in order to place a medical devices on the EEA market.

Microbot intends to apply for the CE Mark for each of its medical device products. There is no guarantee that Microbot will be granted a CE Mark for all or any of its pipeline products and failure to obtain the CE Mark would adversely affect its ability to grow its business.

Israel. Israel’s Medical Devices Law generally requires the registration of all medical products with the Ministry of Health, or MOH, Registrar as a precondition for production and distribution in Israel. Special exemptions may apply under limited circumstances and for purposes such as the provision of essential medical treatment, research and development of the medical device, and personal use, among others.

Registration of medical devices requires the submission of an application to the Ministry of Health Medical Institutions and Devices Licensing Department, or AMAR. An application for the registration of a medical device includes the following:

If the application includes a certificate issued by a competent authority of one of the following “recognized” countries: Australia, Canada, European Community (CE) Member States (MSs), Japan, or the United States, the registration process is generally expedited, but could still take 6-9 months for approval. If such certificate is not available, the registration process will take significantly longer and a license is rarely issued. Furthermore, the MOH will determine what type of testing is needed. In general, in the case of Israeli manufactured devices that are not registered or authorized in any “recognized” country, the application requires presentation of a risk analysis, a clinical evaluation, a summary of the clinical trials, and expert opinions regarding the device’s safety and effectiveness. Additional requirements may apply during the registration period, including follow-up reviews, to improve the quality and safety of the devices.

According to regulations issued by Israel’s Minister of Health in June 2013, a decision on a request to register a medical device must be delivered by AMAR within 120 days from the date of the request, although this rarely occurs. The current rules for the registration of medical devices do not provide for an expedited approval process.

Once granted by the MOH, a license (marketing authorization) for a medical device is valid for five years from the date of registration of the device, except for implants with a life-supporting function, for which the validity is for only two years from the date of registration. Furthermore, the holder of the license, the Israeli Registration Holder, or IRH, must do the following to maintain its license:

Getting a device listed on Israel’s four major Sick Funds (health insurance entities) is also necessary in order for Israeli hospitals and health care providers to order such products.

Microbot intends to apply for a license from the MOH for each of its medical devices. There is no guarantee that Microbot will be granted licenses for its pipeline products and failure to obtain such licenses would adversely affect its ability to grow its business.

Employees

Microbot’s Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman, Harel Gadot, along with one full-time employee, are based in Microbot’s U.S. office located in Hingham, Massachusetts. Additionally, Microbot currently has 8 full-time employees and 1 part time employee based in its office located in Caesarea, Israel. These employees oversee day-to-day operations of the Company supporting management and leading engineering, manufacturing, intellectual property and administration functions of the Company. As required, Microbot also engages consultants to provide services to the Company, including regulatory, legal and corporate services. Microbot has no unionized employees.

Microbot currently plans to hire an additional 4-6 full-time employees within the next 12 months subject to the availability of funds, whose principal responsibilities will be the support of its operational, research and development, regulatory and clinical development activities.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our business, operating results, financial performance, and share price may be materially adversely affected by a number of factors, including but not limited to the following risk factors, any one of which could cause actual results to vary materially from anticipated results or from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by us in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or in other reports, press releases or other statements issued from time to time. Additional factors that may cause such a difference are set forth elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this report. We do not undertake any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements.

Risks Relating to Microbot’s Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

Microbot has had no revenue and has incurred significant operating losses since inception and is expected to continue to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future. The Company may never become profitable or, if achieved, be able to sustain profitability.

Microbot has incurred significant operating losses since its inception and expects to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future as Microbot continues its preclinical and clinical development programs for its existing product candidates, SCS and TipCAT; its research and development of any other future product candidates; and all other work necessary to obtain regulatory clearances or approvals for its product candidates in the United States and other markets. In the future, Microbot intends to continue conducting micro-robotics research and development; performing necessary animal and clinical testing; working towards medical device regulatory compliance; and, if SCS, TipCAT or other future product candidates are approved or cleared for commercial distribution, engaging in appropriate sales and marketing activities that, together with anticipated general and administrative expenses, will likely result in Microbot incurring further significant losses for the foreseeable future.

Microbot is a development-stage medical device company and currently generates no revenue from product sales, and may never be able to commercialize SCS, TipCAT, the CardioSert technology or other future product candidates. Microbot does not currently have the required approvals or clearances to market or test in humans SCS, TipCAT, the CardioSert technology or any other future product candidates and Microbot may never receive them. Microbot does not anticipate generating significant revenues until it can successfully develop, commercialize and sell products derived from its product pipeline, of which Microbot can give no assurance. Even if Microbot or any of its future development partners succeed in commercializing any of its product candidates, Microbot may never generate revenues significant enough to achieve profitability.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with its product development pipeline and strategy, Microbot cannot accurately predict when it will achieve profitability, if ever. Failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of the Company and could impair its ability to raise capital, which may force the Company to curtail or discontinue its research and development programs and/or day-to-day operations. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that profitability, if achieved, can be sustained on an ongoing basis.

Microbot has a limited operating history, which may make it difficult to evaluate the prospects for the Company’s future viability.

Microbot has a limited operating history upon which an evaluation of its business plan or performance and prospects can be made. The business and prospects of Microbot must be considered in the light of the potential problems, delays, uncertainties and complications that may be encountered in connection with a newly established business. The risks include, but are not limited to, the possibility that Microbot will not be able to develop functional and scalable products, or that although functional and scalable, its products will not be economical to market; that its competitors hold proprietary rights that may preclude Microbot from marketing such products; that its competitors market a superior or equivalent product; that Microbot is not able to upgrade and enhance its technologies and products to accommodate new features and expanded service offerings; or the failure to receive necessary regulatory clearances or approvals for its products. To successfully introduce and market its products at a profit, Microbot must establish brand name recognition and competitive advantages for its products. There are no assurances that Microbot can successfully address these challenges. If it is unsuccessful, Microbot and its business, financial condition and operating results could be materially and adversely affected.

Microbot’s operations to date have been limited to organizing the company, entering into licensing arrangements to initially obtain rights to its technologies, developing and securing its technologies, raising capital, developing regulatory and reimbursement strategies for its product candidates and preparing for pre-clinical and clinical trials of the SCS and TipCAT. Microbot has not yet demonstrated its ability to successfully complete development of any product candidate, obtain marketing clearance or approval, manufacture a commercial-scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on its behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, any predictions made about Microbot’s future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if Microbot had a longer operating history.

Microbot will need substantial additional funding. If Microbot is unable to raise capital when needed, it could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate its product development programs or commercialization efforts.

To date, Microbot has funded its operations primarily through offerings of debt and equity securities, grants and loans. Microbot does not know when, or if, it will generate any revenue, but does not expect to generate significant revenue unless and until it obtains regulatory clearance or approval of and commercializes one of its current or future product candidates. It is anticipated that the Company will continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and that losses will increase as it continues the development of, and seeks regulatory review of, its product candidates, and begins to commercialize any approved or cleared products following a successful regulatory review.

Microbot expects the research and development expenses of the Company to increase substantially in future periods as it conducts pre-clinical studies in large animals and potentially clinical trials for its product candidates, and especially if it initiates additional research programs for future product candidates, including the CardioSert technology. In addition, if the Company obtains marketing clearance or approval for any of its product candidates, it expects to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, marketing and sales. Furthermore, Microbot incurs substantial costs associated with operating as a public company in the United States. Accordingly, the Company will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with its continuing operations. If the Company is unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, it could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate its research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts.

Microbot believes that the net cash of the Company will be sufficient to fund the Company for at least 12 months and fund operations necessary to continue development activities of the SCS.

The Company may need to raise additional funds through equity offerings or otherwise in order to meet expected future liquidity needs, including the introduction of the SCS device into the hydrocephalus and NPH market. The Company’s future capital requirements, generally, will depend on many factors, including:

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to the Company’s investors, restrict its operations or require it to relinquish rights to its technologies or product candidates.

Until such time, if ever, as the Company can generate substantial product revenues, it expects to finance its cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, licensing, collaboration or similar arrangements, grants and debt financings. The Company does not have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that the Company raises additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interest of its stockholders will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of holder of the Company’s common stock. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting the Company’s ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, declaring dividends or other distributions, selling or licensing intellectual property rights, and other operating restrictions that could adversely affect the Company’s ability to conduct its business.

If the Company raises additional funds through licensing, collaboration or similar arrangements, it may have to relinquish valuable rights to its technologies, future revenue streams, research and development programs or product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to the Company. If the Company is unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings or other arrangements when needed, it may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate its product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that it would otherwise prefer to develop and market itself.

Risks Relating to the Development and Commercialization of Microbot’s Product Candidates

Microbot’s business depends heavily on the success of its lead product candidate, the SCS. If Microbot is unable to commercialize the SCS or experiences significant delays in doing so, Microbot’s business will be materially harmed.

On January 27, 2017, Microbot entered into a research agreement with Washington University in St. Louis to develop the protocol for and to execute the necessary animal study to determine the effectiveness of the Microbot’s SCS prototype. The initial research was completed in 2017 with a comprehensive study expected to be completed in 2019. Upon the completion of animal studies, Microbot may conduct clinical trials if they are requested by the FDA or if Microbot decides that the data from such trials would improve the marketability of the product candidate. After all necessary clinical and performance data supporting the safety and effectiveness of SCS are collected, Microbot must still obtain FDA clearance or approval to market the device and those regulatory processes can take several months to several years to be completed. Therefore, Microbot’s ability to generate product revenues will not occur for at least the next few years, if at all, and will depend heavily on the successful commercialization of SCS in the treatment of hydrocephalus. The success of commercializing SCS will depend on a number of factors, including the following:

If Microbot does not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, it could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize SCS, which would materially harm its business. These risks may also apply to Microbot’s other technologies.

Microbot’s ability to expand its technology platforms for other uses, including endovascular neurosurgery other than for the treatment of hydrocephalus, may be limited.

After spending time working with experts in the field, Microbot has recently decided to no longer pursue the use of TipCAT in colonoscopy and has instead committed to focus on expanding all of its technology platforms for use in segments of the endovascular neurosurgery market, including traumatic brain injury, to capitalize on its existing competencies in hydrocephalus and the market’s needs. Microbot’s ability to expand its technology platforms for use in the endovascular neurosurgery market will be limited by its ability to develop and/or refine the necessary technology, obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for their use on humans, and the marketing of its products and otherwise obtaining market acceptance of its product in the United States and in other countries.

Microbot operates in a competitive industry and if its competitors have products that are marketed more effectively or develop products, treatments or procedures that are similar, more advanced, safer or more effective, its commercial opportunities will be reduced or eliminated, which would materially harm its business.

Our competitors may develop products, treatments or procedures that directly compete with our products and potential products and which are similar, more advanced, safer or more effective than ours. The medical device industry is very competitive and subject to significant technological and practice changes. Microbot expects to face competition from many different sources with respect to the SCS and products that it is seeking to develop or commercialize with respect to its other product candidates in the future.

Competing against large established competitors with significant resources may make establishing a market for any products that it develops difficult which would have a material adverse effect on Microbot’s business. Microbot’s commercial opportunities could also be reduced or eliminated if its competitors develop and commercialize products, treatments or procedures quicker, that are safer, more effective, are more convenient or are less expensive than the SCS or any product that Microbot may develop. Many of Microbot’s potential competitors have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than Microbot may have. Mergers and acquisitions in the medical device industry market may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of Microbot’s potential competitors.

At this time, Microbot does not know whether the FDA will require it to submit clinical data in support of its future marketing applications for its SCS product candidate, particularly in light of recent initiatives by the FDA to enhance and modernize its approach to medical device safety and innovation, which creates uncertainty for Microbot as well as the possibility of increased product development costs and time to market.

Although Microbot has identified a predicate device for its lead product candidate, the SCS, which it intended to use in its 510(k) application, it may determine that a 510(k) de novo application is more appropriate for the SCS. If the Company determines to proceed with the 510(k) application and the FDA agrees with the Company’s determination, the SCS will be classified by the FDA as Class II and eligible for marketing pursuant to FDA clearance through the 510(k) application. However, in light of recent initiatives by the FDA relating to safety and efficacy, there is no guarantee that the FDA will agree with the Company’s determination or that the FDA would accept the predicate device that Microbot intends to submit in its 510(k). The FDA also may request additional data in response to a 510(k), or require Microbot to conduct further testing or compile more data in support of its 510(k). Such additional data could include clinical data that must be derived from human clinical studies that are designed appropriately to address the potential questions from the FDA regarding a proposed product’s safety or effectiveness. It is unclear at this time whether and how various activities recently initiated or announced by the FDA to modernize the U.S. medical device regulatory system could affect the marketing pathway or timeline for our product candidate, given the timing and the undeveloped nature of some of the FDA’s new medical device safety and innovation initiatives. One of the recent initiatives was announced in April 2018, when the FDA Commissioner issued a statement with the release of a Medical Device Safety Action Plan. Among other key areas of the Medical Device Safety Action Plan, the Commissioner stated that the FDA is “exploring what further actions we can take to spur innovation towards technologies that can make devices and their use safer. For instance, our Breakthrough Device Program that helps address unmet medical needs can be used to facilitate patient access to innovative new devices that have important improvements to patient safety. We’re considering developing a similar program to support the development of safer devices that do not otherwise meet the Breakthrough Program criteria, but are clearly intended to be safer than currently available technologies.” This type of program may negatively affect our existing development plan for the SCS product candidate or it may benefit Microbot, but at this time those potential impacts from recent FDA medical device initiatives are unknown and uncertain. Similarly, the FDA Commissioner announced various agency goals under a Medical Innovation Access Plan in 2017.

If the FDA does require clinical data to be submitted as part of the SCS marketing submission, any type of clinical study performed in humans will require the investment of substantial expense, professional resources and time. In order to conduct a clinical investigation involving human subjects for the purpose of demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of a medical device, a company must, among other things, apply for and obtain Institutional Review Board, or IRB, approval of the proposed investigation. In addition, if the clinical study involves a “significant risk” (as defined by the FDA) to human health, the sponsor of the investigation must also submit and obtain FDA approval of an Investigational Device Exemption, or IDE, application. Microbot may not be able to obtain FDA and/or IRB approval to undertake clinical trials in the United States for any new devices Microbot intends to market in the United States in the future. Moreover, the timing of the commencement, continuation and completion of any future clinical trial may be subject to significant delays attributable to various causes, including scheduling conflicts with participating clinicians and clinical institutions, difficulties in identifying and enrolling patients who meet trial eligibility criteria, failure of patients to complete the clinical trial, delay in or failure to obtain IRB approval to conduct a clinical trial at a prospective site, and shortages of supply in the investigational device.

Thus, the addition of one or more mandatory clinical trials to the development timeline for the SCS would significantly increase the costs associated with developing and commercializing the product and delay the timing of U.S. regulatory authorization. The current uncertainty regarding near-term medical device regulatory changes by the FDA could further affect our development plans for the SCS, depending on their nature, scope and applicability. Microbot and its business, financial condition and operating results could be materially and adversely affected as a result of any such costs, delays or uncertainty.

The FDA may disagree with Microbot’s determination that the SCS is a Class II device or that the chosen predicate device (or any predicate device) is appropriate for a substantial equivalence comparison to the SCS.

Although the Company intended to submit a 501(k) application for its lead product candidate, the SCS, the Company is now considering that the FDA may determine that the SCS is a Class III device because there is no appropriate predicate device for substantial equivalence comparison, which would require Microbot to submit a De Novo classification request or an application for premarket approval (“PMA”). Both De Novo requests and PMA applications require applicants to prepare information and data about device safety and efficacy in addition to the 510(k) requirements, including a benefit-risk analysis, a discussion of proposed general and special controls to eliminate or mitigate device risks, and additional testing data. PMA applications almost always require data from human clinical studies, and while De Novo requests do not require human clinical study data, in most cases, such data is necessary to demonstrate that the FDA can appropriately classify the device as Class II.

Any type of clinical study performed in humans will require the investment of substantial expense, professional resources and time. In order to conduct a clinical investigation involving human subjects for the purpose of demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of a medical device, a company must, among other things, apply for and obtain Institutional Review Board, or IRB, approval of the proposed investigation. In addition, if the clinical study involves a “significant risk” (as defined by the FDA) to human health, the sponsor of the investigation must also submit and obtain FDA approval of an Investigational Device Exemption, or IDE, application. Microbot may not be able to obtain FDA and/or IRB approval to undertake clinical trials in the United States for any new devices Microbot intends to market in the United States in the future. Moreover, the timing of the commencement, continuation and completion of any future clinical trial may be subject to significant delays attributable to various causes, including scheduling conflicts with participating clinicians and clinical institutions, difficulties in identifying and enrolling patients who meet trial eligibility criteria, failure of patients to complete the clinical trial, delay in or failure to obtain IRB approval to conduct a clinical trial at a prospective site, and shortages of supply in the investigational device. Thus, the addition of one or more mandatory clinical trials to the development timeline for the SCS would significantly increase the costs associated with developing and commercializing the product and delay the timing of U.S. regulatory authorization.

Furthermore, if Microbot is required to submit a De Novo request or PMA application instead of a 510(k), the FDA review process may take significantly more time. While the FDA commits to reviewing 510(k)s in 90 days, the review period for De Novo requests and PMA applications is 150 days and 180 days, respectively. After an initial review of our De Novo request or PMA application, the FDA may request additional information or data which can significantly delay an ultimate decision on our submission.

Thus, submitting a De Novo request or PMA application for the SCS would significantly increase the costs associated with developing and commercializing the product and delay the timing of U.S. regulatory authorization. Microbot and its business, financial condition and operating results could be materially and adversely affected as a result of any such costs or delays.

Unsuccessful animal studies, clinical trials or procedures relating to product candidates under development could have a material adverse effect on Microbot’s prospects.

The regulatory approval process for new products and new indications for existing products requires extensive data and procedures, including the development of regulatory and quality standards and, potentially, certain clinical studies. Unfavorable or inconsistent data from current or future clinical trials or other studies conducted by Microbot or third parties, including the studies now being performed by The Washington University or perceptions regarding such data, could adversely affect Microbot’s ability to obtain necessary device clearance or approval and the market’s view of Microbot’s future prospects. Failure to successfully complete these studies in a timely and cost-effective manner could have a material adverse effect on Microbot’s prospects. Because animal trials, clinical trials and other types of scientific studies are inherently uncertain, there can be no assurance that these trials or studies will be completed in a timely or cost-effective manner or result in a commercially viable product. Clinical trials or studies may experience significant setbacks even if earlier preclinical or animal studies have shown promising results. Furthermore, preliminary results from clinical trials may be contradicted by subsequent clinical analysis. Results from clinical trials may also not be supported by actual long-term studies or clinical experience. If preliminary clinical results are later contradicted, or if initial results cannot be supported by actual long-term studies or clinical experience, Microbot’s business could be adversely affected. Clinical trials also may be suspended or terminated by us, the FDA or other regulatory authorities at any time if it is believed that the trial participants face unacceptable health risks.

Microbot has no prior experience in conducting clinical trials and will depend upon the ability of third parties, including contract research organizations, collaborative academic groups, future clinical trial sites and investigators, to conduct or to assist the Company in conducting clinical trials for its product candidates, if such trials become necessary.

As a development-stage, pre-clinical company, Microbot has no prior experience in designing, initiating, conducting and monitoring human clinical trials, if data from such trials become necessary in order to obtain regulatory clearance or approval of our product candidates. Should the FDA or another regulatory agency in a foreign market request clinical data to support the safety and effectiveness of Microbot’s product candidates, Microbot will depend upon its ability and/or the ability of future collaborators, contract research organizations, clinical trial sites and investigators to successfully design, initiate, conduct and monitor such clinical trials.

Failure by Microbot or by any of these future collaborating parties to timely and effectively initiate, conduct and monitor a future clinical trial could significantly delay or materially impair Microbot’s ability to complete those clinical trials and/or obtain regulatory clearance or approval of its product candidates and, consequently, could delay or materially impair its ability to generate revenues from the commercialization of those products.

If the commercial opportunity for SCS and any other commercial products that may be developed by Microbot is smaller than Microbot anticipates, Microbot’s future revenue from SCS and such other products will be adversely affected and Microbot’s business will suffer.

If the size of the commercial opportunities in any of Microbot’s target markets is smaller than it anticipates, Microbot may not be able to achieve profitability and growth. Microbot is developing SCS as a device for the treatment of hydrocephalus and NPH. Microbot expects its future revenues to be primarily derived from the sales of the SCS, which has not undergone an FDA pre-market review process necessary to commercialize the product candidate in the United States. It is difficult to predict the penetration, future growth rate or size of the market for Microbot’s product candidate.

The commercial success of the SCS will require broad acceptance of the devices by the doctors and other medical professionals who specialize in the procedures targeted by each device, a limited number of whom may be able to influence device selection and purchasing decisions. If Microbot’s technologies are not broadly accepted and perceived as having significant advantages over existing medical devices, then it will not meet its business objectives. Such perceptions are likely to be based on a determination by medical facilities and physicians that Microbot’s product candidates are safe and effective, are cost-effective in comparison to existing devices, and represent acceptable methods of treatment. Microbot cannot assure that it will be able to establish the relationships and arrangements with medical facilities and physicians necessary to support the market uptake of its product candidates. In addition, its competitors may develop new technologies for the same markets Microbot is targeting that are more attractive to medical facilities and physicians. If doctors and other medical professionals do not consider Microbot product candidates to be suitable for application in the procedures we are targeting and an improvement over the use of existing or competing products, Microbot’s business goals will not be realized.

Customers will be unlikely to buy the SCS unless Microbot can demonstrate that they can be produced for sale to consumers at attractive prices.

To date, Microbot has focused primarily on research and development of the first generation versions of the SCS. Consequently, Microbot has no experience in manufacturing its product candidates, and intends to manufacture its product candidates through third-party manufacturers. Microbot can offer no assurance that either it or its manufacturing partners will develop efficient, automated, low-cost manufacturing capabilities and processes to meet the quality, price, engineering, design and production standards or production volumes required to successfully mass produce its commercial products. Even if its manufacturing partners are successful in developing such manufacturing capability and quality processes, including the assurance of GMP-compliant device manufacturing, there can be no assurance that Microbot can timely meet its product commercialization schedule or the production and delivery requirements of potential customers. A failure to develop such manufacturing processes and capabilities could have a material adverse effect on Microbot’s business and financial results.

The proposed price of Microbot’s product candidates, once approved for sale, will be dependent on material and other manufacturing costs. Microbot cannot offer any assurances that its manufacturing partner will be able manufacture its product candidates at a competitive price or that achieving cost reductions will not cause a reduction in the performance, reliability and longevity of its product candidates.

Microbot has relied on, and intends to continue to rely on, third-party manufacturers to produce its product candidates.

Microbot currently relies, and expects to rely for the foreseeable future, on third-party manufacturers to produce and supply its product candidates, and it expects to rely on third parties to manufacture the commercialized products as well, should they receive the necessary regulatory clearance or approval. Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which Microbot would not be subject if Microbot manufactured its product candidates or future commercial products itself, including:

If Microbot is not able to maintain its key manufacturing relationships, Microbot may fail to find replacement manufacturers or develop its own manufacturing capabilities, which could delay or impair Microbot’s ability to obtain regulatory clearance or approval for its product candidates and could substantially increase its costs or deplete profit margins, if any. If Microbot does find replacement manufacturers, Microbot may not be able to enter into agreements with them on terms and conditions favorable to it and there could be a substantial delay before new facilities could be qualified and registered with the FDA and other foreign regulatory authorities.

If Microbot’s product candidates are not considered to be a safe and effective alternative to existing technologies, Microbot will not be commercially successful.

The SCS and TipCAT rely on new technologies, and Microbot’s success will depend on acceptance of these technologies by the medical community as safe, clinically effective, cost effective and a preferred device as compared to products of its competitors. Microbot does not have long-term data regarding efficacy, safety and clinical outcomes associated with the use of SCS or TipCAT. Any data that is generated in the future may not be positive or may not support the product candidates’ regulatory dossiers, which would negatively affect market acceptance and the rate at which its product candidates are adopted. Equally important will be physicians’ perceptions of the safety of Microbot’s product candidates because Microbot’s technologies are relatively new. If, over the long term, Microbot’s product candidates do not meet surgeons’ expectations as to safety, efficacy and ease of use, they may not become widely adopted.

Market acceptance of Microbot’s product candidates will also be affected by other factors, including Microbot’s ability to convince key opinion leaders to provide recommendations regarding its product candidates; convince distributors that its technologies are attractive alternatives to existing and competing technologies; supply and service sufficient quantities of products directly or through marketing alliances; and price products competitively in light of the current macroeconomic environment, which is becoming increasingly price sensitive.

Microbot may be subject to penalties and may be precluded from marketing its product candidates if Microbot fails to comply with extensive governmental regulations.

Microbot believes that its medical device product candidates will be categorized as Class II devices, which typically require a 510(k) or 510(k) de-novo premarket submission to the FDA. However, the FDA has not made any determination about whether Microbot’s medical product candidates are Class II medical devices and may disagree with that classification. If the FDA determines that Microbot’s product candidates should be reclassified as Class III medical devices, Microbot could be precluded from marketing the devices for clinical use within the United States for months, years or longer, depending on the specifics of the change in classification. Reclassification of any of Microbot’s product candidates as Class III medical devices could significantly increase Microbot’s regulatory costs, including the timing and expense associated with required clinical trials and other costs.

The FDA and non-U.S. regulatory authorities require that Microbot product candidates be manufactured according to rigorous standards. These regulatory requirements significantly increase Microbot’s production costs, which may prevent Microbot from offering products within the price range and in quantities necessary to meet market demands. If Microbot or one of its third-party manufacturers changes an approved manufacturing process, the FDA may need to review the process before it may be used. Failure to comply with applicable pre-market and post-market regulatory requirements could subject Microbot to enforcement actions, including warning letters, fines, injunctions and civil penalties, recall or seizure of its products, operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of its production, and criminal prosecution.

If Microbot is not able to both obtain and maintain adequate levels of third-party reimbursement for procedures involving its product candidates after they are approved for marketing and launched commercially, it would have a material adverse effect on Microbot’s 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 payor’s discretion. The coverage policies and reimbursement levels of these third-party payors 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. Microbot cannot assure you that its sales will not be impeded and its business harmed if third-party payors fail to provide reimbursement for Microbot products that healthcare providers view as adequate.

In the United States, Microbot expects that its product candidates, once approved, will be purchased primarily by medical institutions, which then bill various third-party payors, such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, which administers the Medicare program through Medicare Administrative Contractors, and other government health care programs and private insurance plans, for the healthcare products and services provided to their patients. The process involved in applying for coverage and incremental reimbursement from CMS is lengthy and expensive. Moreover, many private payors look to CMS in setting their reimbursement policies and amounts. If CMS or other agencies limit coverage for procedures utilizing Microbot’s products or decrease or limit reimbursement payments for doctors and hospitals utilizing Microbot’s products, this may affect coverage and reimbursement determinations by many private payors.

If a procedure involving a medical device is not reimbursed separately by a government or private insurer, then a medical institution would have to absorb the cost of Microbot’s products as part of the cost of the procedure in which the products are used. At this time, Microbot does not know the extent to which medical institutions would consider insurers’ payment levels adequate to cover the cost of its products. Failure by hospitals and surgeons to receive an amount that they consider to be adequate reimbursement for procedures in which Microbot products are used could deter them from purchasing Microbot products and limit sales growth for those products.

Microbot has no control over payor decision-making with respect to coverage and payment levels for its medical device product candidates, once they are approved. Additionally, Microbot expects many payors to continue to explore cost-containment strategies (e.g., comparative and cost-effectiveness analyses, so-called “pay-for-performance” programs implemented by various public government health care programs and private third-party payors, and expansion of payment bundling initiatives, and other such methods that shift medical cost risk to providers) that may potentially impact coverage and/or payment levels for Microbot’s current product candidates or products Microbot develops in the future.

As Microbot’s product offerings are used across diverse healthcare settings, they will be affected to varying degrees by the different payment systems.

Clinical outcome studies for the SCS may not provide sufficient data to make Microbot’s product candidates the standard of care.

Microbot’s business plan relies on the broad adoption by surgeons of the SCS for primary shunt placement procedures to prevent shunt occlusions. Although Microbot believes the occurrence of shunt occlusion complications is well known among physicians practicing in the relevant medical fields, SCS may be adopted for replacement shunt surgeries only. Neurosurgeons may adopt SCS for primary shunt placement procedures only upon additional clinical studies with longer follow up periods, if at all. It may also be necessary to provide outcome studies on the preventative capabilities of the SCS in order to convince the medical community of its safety and efficacy. Clinical studies may not show an advantage in SCS based procedures in a timely manner, or at all, and outcome studies have not been designed at this time, and may be too large and too costly for Microbot to conduct. Both situations could prevent broad adoption of the SCS and materially impact Microbot’s business.

Microbot products may in the future be subject to mandatory product recalls that could harm its reputation, business and financial results.

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 that could pose a risk of injury to patients. In the case of the FDA, the authority to require a recall must be based on an FDA finding that there is a reasonable probability that the device would cause serious injury or death, although in most cases this mandatory recall authority is not used because manufacturers typically initiate a voluntary recall when a device violation is discovered. In addition, foreign governmental bodies have the authority to require the recall of Microbot products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture. 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 Microbot or one of its distributors could occur as a result of component failures, manufacturing errors, design or labeling defects or other deficiencies and issues. Recalls of any Microbot products would divert managerial and financial resources and have an adverse effect on Microbot’s financial condition and results of operations, and any future recall announcements could harm Microbot’s reputation with customers and negatively affect its sales. In addition, the FDA could take enforcement action, including any of the following sanctions for failing to timely report a recall to the FDA:

If Microbot’s future commercialized products cause or contribute to a death or a serious injury, Microbot will be subject to Medical Device Reporting regulations, which can result in voluntary corrective actions or agency enforcement actions.

Under FDA regulations, Microbot will be required to report to the FDA any incident in which a marketed medical device product may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or in which a medical device malfunctioned and, if the malfunction were to recur, would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury. In addition, all manufacturers placing medical devices in European Union markets are legally bound to report any serious or potentially serious incidents involving devices they produce or sell to the relevant authority in whose jurisdiction the incident occurred.

Microbot anticipates that in the future it is likely that we may experience events that would require reporting to the FDA pursuant to the Medical Device Reporting (MDR) regulations. Any adverse event involving a Microbot product could result in future voluntary corrective actions, such as product actions or customer notifications, or agency actions, such as inspection, mandatory recall or other enforcement action. Any corrective action, whether voluntary or involuntary, as well as defending Microbot in a lawsuit, will require the dedication of our time and capital, distract management from operating our business, and may harm our reputation and financial results.

Microbot could be exposed to significant liability claims if Microbot is unable to obtain insurance at acceptable costs and adequate levels or otherwise protect itself against potential product liability claims.

The testing, manufacture, marketing and sale of medical devices entail the inherent risk of liability claims or product recalls. Product liability insurance is expensive and may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. A successful product liability claim or product recall could inhibit or prevent the successful commercialization of Microbot’s products, cause a significant financial burden on Microbot, or both, which in any case could have a material adverse effect on Microbot’s business and financial condition.

The results of Microbot’s research and development efforts are uncertain and there can be no assurance of the commercial success of Microbot’s product candidates.

Microbot believe that its success will depend in part on its ability to expand its product offerings and continue to improve its existing product candidates in response to changing technologies, customer demands and competitive pressures. As such, Microbot expects to continue dedicating significant resources in research and development. The product candidates and services being developed by Microbot may not be technologically successful. In addition, the length of Microbot’s product candidates and service development cycle may be greater than Microbot originally expected.

Our business strategy in part relies on identifying, acquiring and developing complementary technologies and products, which entails risks which could negatively affect our business, operations and financial condition.

We may pursue other acquisitions of businesses and technologies. Acquisitions entail numerous risks, including:

As part of our growth strategy, we may consider, and from time to time may engage in, discussions and negotiations regarding transactions, such as acquisitions, mergers and combinations within our industry. The purchase price for possible acquisitions could be paid in cash, through the issuance of common stock or other securities, borrowings or a combination of these methods.

We cannot be certain that we will be able to identify, consummate and successfully integrate acquisitions, and no assurance can be given with respect to the timing, likelihood or business effect of any possible transaction. For example, we could begin negotiations that we subsequently decide to suspend or terminate for a variety of reasons. However, opportunities may arise from time to time that we will evaluate. Any transactions that we consummate would involve risks and uncertainties to us. These risks could cause the failure of any anticipated benefits of an acquisition to be realized, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If Microbot fails to retain certain of its key personnel and attract and retain additional qualified personnel, Microbot might not be able to pursue its growth strategy effectively.

Microbot is dependent on its senior management, in particular Harel Gadot, Microbot’s Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. Although Microbot believes that its relationship with members of its senior management is positive, there can be no assurance that the services of any of these individuals will continue to be available to Microbot in the future. Microbot’s future success will depend in part on its ability to retain its management and scientific teams, to identify, hire and retain additional qualified personnel with expertise in research and development and sales and marketing, and to effectively provide for the succession of senior management, when necessary. Competition for qualified personnel in the medical device industry is intense and finding and retaining qualified personnel with experience in the industry is very difficult. Microbot believes that there are only a limited number of individuals with the requisite skills to serve in key positions at Microbot, particularly in Israel, and it competes for key personnel with other medical equipment and technology companies, as well as research institutions.

Microbot does not carry, and does not intend to carry, any key man life insurance policies on any of its existing executive officers.

Risks Relating to International Business

If Microbot fails to obtain regulatory clearances in other countries for its product candidates under development, Microbot will not be able to commercialize these product candidates in those countries.

In order for Microbot to market its product candidates in countries other than the United States, it must comply with the safety and quality regulations in such countries.

In Europe, these regulations, including the requirements for approvals, clearance or grant of Conformité Européenne, or CE, Certificates of Conformity and the time required for regulatory review, vary from country to country. Failure to obtain regulatory approval, clearance or CE Certificates of Conformity (or equivalent) in any foreign country in which Microbot plans to market its product candidates may harm its ability to generate revenue and harm its business. Approval and CE marking procedures vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval or CE Certificate of Conformity in other countries might differ from that required to obtain FDA clearance. The regulatory approval or CE marking process in other countries may include all of the risks detailed above regarding FDA clearance in the United States. Regulatory approval or the CE marking of a product candidate in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval or a CE Certificate of Conformity in one country may negatively impact the regulatory process in others. Failure to obtain regulatory approval or a CE Certificate of Conformity in other countries or any delay or setback in obtaining such approval could have the same adverse effects described above regarding FDA clearance in the United States.

Microbot cannot be certain that it will be successful in complying with the requirements of the CE Certificate of Conformity and receiving a CE Mark for its product candidates or in continuing to meet the requirements of the Medical Devices Directive in the European Economic Area (EEA).

Israel’s Medical Devices Law generally requires the registration of all medical products with the Ministry of Health, or MOH, Registrar through the submission of an application to the Ministry of Health Medical Institutions and Devices Licensing Department, or AMAR. If the application includes a certificate issued by a competent authority of a “recognized” country, which includes Australia, Canada, the European Community Member States, Japan or the United States, the registration process is expedited, but is generally still expected to take 6 to 9 months for approval. If certification from a recognized country is not available, the registration process takes significantly longer and a license is rarely issued under such circumstances, as the MOH may require the presentation of significant additional clinical data. Once granted, a license (marketing authorization) for a medical device is valid for five years from the date of registration of the device, except for implants with a life-supporting function, for which the validity is for only two years from the date of registration. Furthermore, the holder of the license must meet several additional requirements to maintain the license. Microbot cannot be certain that it will be successful in applying for a license from the MOH for its product candidates.

Microbot operations in international markets involve inherent risks that Microbot may not be able to control.

Microbot’s business plan includes the marketing and sale of its proposed product candidates internationally, and specifically in Europe and Israel. Accordingly, Microbot’s results could be materially and adversely affected by a variety of factors relating to international business operations that it may or may not be able to control, including:

Microbot’s financial results may be affected by fluctuations in exchange rates and Microbot’s current currency hedging strategy may not be sufficient to counter such fluctuations.

Microbot’s financial statements are denominated in U.S. dollars and the financial results of the Company are denominated in U.S. dollars, while a significant portion of Microbot’s business is conducted, and a substantial portion of its operating expenses are payable, in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. Exchange rate fluctuations may have an adverse impact on Microbot’s future revenues or expenses as presented in the financial statements. Microbot may in the future use financial instruments, such as forward foreign currency contracts, in its management of foreign currency exposure. These contracts would primarily require Microbot to purchase and sell certain foreign currencies with or for U.S. dollars at contracted rates. Microbot may be exposed to a credit loss in the event of non-performance by the counterparties of these contracts. In addition, these financial instruments may not adequately manage Microbot’s foreign currency exposure. Microbot’s results of operations could be adversely affected if Microbot is unable to successfully manage currency fluctuations in the future.

Risks Relating to Microbot’s Intellectual Property

Microbot’s right to develop and commercialize its existing product candidates are subject to the terms and condition of a license granted to Microbot by Technion Research and Development Foundation Ltd. and termination of the license with respect to one or both of the technology platforms underlying the product candidates would result in Microbot ceasing its development efforts for the applicable product candidate(s).

Microbot entered into a license agreement with Technion Research and Development Foundation Ltd., or TRDF, in 2012 pursuant to which Microbot obtained an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license to certain patents and inventions relating to the SCS and TipCAT technology platforms. Pursuant to the terms of the license agreement, in order to maintain the license with respect to each platform, Microbot must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop products covered by the license, including meeting certain agreed upon development milestones. TRDF has the option to terminate a license granted with respect a particular technology in the event Microbot fails to meet a development milestone associated with such technology. Therefore, the failure to meet development milestones may lead to a complete termination of the applicable license agreement and result in Microbot ceasing its development efforts for the applicable product candidate. The milestones for SCS include commencing initial studies in humans by December 2019. The milestones for TipCAT include commencing initial studies in humans by December 2019 and commencing a full clinical trial, if necessary, by December 2020. Failure to meet any development milestone will give TRDF the right to terminate the license with respect to the technology underlying the missed milestone. Although Microbot expects to meet the milestone requirements, TRDF has demonstrated flexibility with respect to amending the terms of the license to extend the milestone dates, although we can give no assurance at this time that TRDF will continue to be so flexible with respect to amending the terms of the license.

Under the license agreement, Microbot is also subject to various other obligations, including obligations with respect to payment upon the achievement of certain milestones and royalties on product sales. TRDF may terminate the license agreement under certain circumstances, including material breaches by Microbot or under certain bankruptcy or insolvency events. In the case of termination of the license by Microbot without cause or by TRDF for cause, TRDF has the right to receive a non-exclusive license from Microbot with respect to improvements to the licensed technologies made by Microbot.

If TRDF were to terminate the license agreement or if Microbot was to otherwise lose the ability to exploit the licensed patents, Microbot’s competitive advantage could be reduced or terminated, and Microbot will likely not be able to find a source to replace the licensed technology.

However, if there is any future dispute between Microbot and TRDF regarding the respective parties’ rights under the license agreement, Microbot’s ability to develop and commercialize the SCS and TipCAT may be materially harmed.

Microbot may not meet its product candidates’ development and commercialization objectives in a timely manner or at all.

Microbot has established internal goals, based upon expectations with respect to its technologies, which Microbot has used to assess its progress toward developing its product candidates. These goals relate to technology and design improvements as well as to dates for achieving specific development results. If the product candidates exhibit technical defects or are unable to meet cost or performance goals, Microbot’s commercialization schedule could be delayed and potential purchasers of its initial commercialized products may decline to purchase such products or may opt to pursue alternative products, which would materially harm its business.

Intellectual property litigation and infringement claims could cause Microbot to incur significant expenses or prevent Microbot from selling certain of its product candidates.

The medical device industry is characterized by extensive intellectual property litigation. From time to time, Microbot 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 Microbot’s management and operating personnel from other business issues. A successful claim or claims of patent or other intellectual property infringement against Microbot could result in its payment of significant monetary damages and/or royalty payments or negatively impact its ability to sell current or future products in the affected category and could have a material adverse effect on its business, cash flows, financial condition or results of operations.

If Microbot or TRDF are unable to protect the patents or other proprietary rights relating to Microbot’s product candidates, or if Microbot infringes on the patents or other proprietary rights of others, Microbot’s competitiveness and business prospects may be materially damaged.

Microbot’s success depends on its ability to protect its intellectual property (including its licensed intellectual property) and its proprietary technologies. Microbot’s commercial success depends in part on its ability to obtain and maintain patent protection and trade secret protection for its product candidates, proprietary technologies, and their uses, as well as its ability to operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others.

Microbot currently holds, through licenses or otherwise, an intellectual property portfolio that includes U.S. and international patents and pending patents, and other patents under development. Microbot intends to continue to seek legal protection, primarily through patents, including the TRDF licensed patents, for its proprietary technology. Seeking patent protection is a lengthy and costly process, and there can be no assurance that patents will be issued from any pending applications, or that any claims allowed from existing or pending patents will be sufficiently broad or strong to protect its proprietary technology. There is also no guarantee that any patents Microbot holds, through licenses or otherwise, will not be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, or that the patent rights granted will provide competitive advantages to Microbot. Microbot’s competitors have developed and may continue to develop and obtain patents for technologies that are similar or superior to Microbot’s technologies. In addition, the laws of foreign jurisdictions in which Microbot develops, manufactures or sells its product candidates may not protect Microbot’s intellectual property rights to the same extent as do the laws of the United States.

Adverse outcomes in current or future legal disputes regarding patent and other intellectual property rights could result in the loss of Microbot’s intellectual property rights, subject Microbot to significant liabilities to third parties, require Microbot to seek licenses from third parties on terms that may not be reasonable or favorable to Microbot, prevent Microbot from manufacturing, importing or selling its product candidates, or compel Microbot to redesign its product candidates to avoid infringing third parties’ intellectual property. As a result, Microbot may be required to incur substantial costs to prosecute, enforce or defend its intellectual property rights if they are challenged. Any of these circumstances could have a material adverse effect on Microbot’s business, financial condition and resources or results of operations.

Microbot has the first right, but not the obligation, to control the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of the licensed patents from TRDF. However, there may be situations in which Microbot will not have control over the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of the patents that Microbot licenses, or may not have sufficient ability to consult and input into the patent prosecution and maintenance process with respect to such patents. If Microbot does not control the patent prosecution and maintenance process with respect to the TRDF licensed patents, TRDF may elect to do so but may fail to take the steps that are necessary or desirable in order to obtain, maintain and enforce the licensed patents.

Microbot’s ability to develop intellectual property depends in large part on hiring, retaining and motivating highly qualified design and engineering staff and consultants with the knowledge and technical competence to advance its technology and productivity goals. To protect Microbot’s trade secrets and proprietary information, Microbot has entered into confidentiality agreements with its employees, as well as with consultants and other parties. If these agreements prove inadequate or are breached, Microbot’s remedies may not be sufficient to cover its losses.

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 Microbot’s payment of significant monetary damages or impact offerings in its product portfolios.

Microbot’s long-term success largely depends on its ability to market technologically competitive product candidates. If Microbot fails to obtain or maintain adequate intellectual property protection, it may not be able to prevent third parties from using its proprietary technologies or may lose access to technologies critical to our product candidates. Also, Microbot 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, Microbot has not filed applications for all of our patents internationally and it may not be able to prevent third parties from using its proprietary technologies or may lose access to technologies critical to its product candidates in other countries.

Risks Relating to Operations in Israel

Microbot has facilities located in Israel, and therefore, political conditions in Israel may affect Microbot’s operations and results.

Microbot has facilities located in Israel. In addition, three of its seven directors (one of whom is also its Chief Operating Officer) and its Chief Financial Officer, are residents of Israel. Accordingly, political, economic and military conditions in Israel will directly or indirectly affect Microbot’s operations and results. Since the establishment of the State of Israel, a number of armed conflicts have taken place between Israel and its Arab neighbors. An ongoing state of hostility, varying in degree and intensity has led to security and economic problems for Israel. For a number of years there have been continuing hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians. This includes hostilities with the Islamic movement Hamas in the Gaza Strip, which have adversely affected the peace process and at times resulted in armed conflicts. Such hostilities have negatively influenced Israel’s economy as well as impaired Israel’s relationships with several other countries. Israel also faces threats from Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, from ISIS and rebel forces in Syria, from the government of Iran and other potential threats from additional countries in the region. Moreover, some of Israel’s neighboring countries have recently undergone or are undergoing significant political changes. These political, economic and military conditions in Israel could have a material adverse effect on Microbot’s business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth.

Political relations could limit Microbot’s ability to sell or buy internationally.

Microbot could be adversely affected by the interruption or reduction of trade between Israel and its trading partners. Some countries, companies and organizations continue to participate in a boycott of Israeli firms and others doing business with Israel, with Israeli companies or with Israeli-owned companies operating in other countries. Foreign government defense export policies towards Israel could also make it more difficult for us to obtain the export authorizations necessary for Microbot’s activities. Also, over the past several years there have been calls in the United States, Europe and elsewhere to reduce trade with Israel. There can be no assurance that restrictive laws, policies or practices directed towards Israel or Israeli businesses will not have an adverse impact on Microbot’s business.

Israel’s economy may become unstable.

From time to time, Israel’s economy may experience inflation or deflation, low foreign exchange reserves, fluctuations in world commodity prices, military conflicts and civil unrest. For these and other reasons, the government of Israel has intervened in the economy employing fiscal and monetary policies, import duties, foreign currency restrictions, controls of wages, prices and foreign currency exchange rates and regulations regarding the lending limits of Israeli banks to companies considered to be in an affiliated group. The Israeli government has periodically changed its policies in these areas. Reoccurrence of previous destabilizing factors could make it more difficult for Microbot to operate its business and could adversely affect its business.

Exchange rate fluctuations between the U.S. dollar and the NIS currencies may negatively affect Microbot’s operating costs.

A significant portion of Microbot’s expenses are paid in New Israeli Shekels, or NIS, but its financial statements are denominated in U.S. dollars. As a result, Microbot is exposed to the risks that the NIS may appreciate relative to the U.S. dollar, or the NIS instead devalues relative to the U.S. dollar, and the inflation rate in Israel may exceed such rate of devaluation of the NIS, or that the timing of such devaluation may lag behind inflation in Israel. In any such event, the U.S. dollar cost of Microbot’s operations in Israel would increase and Microbot’s U.S. dollar-denominated results of operations would be adversely affected. Microbot cannot predict any future trends in the rate of inflation in Israel or the rate of devaluation (if any) of the NIS against the U.S. dollar.

Microbot’s primary expenses paid in NIS that are not linked to the U.S. dollar are employee expenses in Israel and lease payments on its Israeli facility. If Microbot is unsuccessful in hedging against its position in NIS, a change in the value of the NIS compared to the U.S. dollar could increase Microbot’s research and development expenses, labor costs and general and administrative expenses, and as a result, have a negative impact on Microbot’s profits.

Funding and other benefits provided by Israeli government programs may be terminated or reduced in the future and the terms of such funding may have a significant impact on future corporate decisions.

Microbot participates in programs under the auspices of the Israeli Innovation Authority, for which it receives funding for the development of its technologies and product candidates. If Microbot fails to comply with the conditions applicable to this program, it may be required to pay additional penalties or make refunds and may be denied future benefits. From time to time, the government of Israel has discussed reducing or eliminating the benefits available under this program, and therefore these benefits may not be available in the future at their current levels or at all.

Microbot’s research and development efforts from inception until now have been financed in part through such Israeli Innovation Authority royalty bearing grants in an aggregate amount of approximately $1,247,000 through December 31, 2018. With respect to such grants Microbot is committed to pay royalties at a rate of between 3% to 3.5% on sales proceeds up to the total amount of grants received, linked to the dollar, plus interest at an annual rate of USD LIBOR. In addition, as a recipient of Israeli Innovation Authority grants, Microbot must comply with the requirements of the Israeli Encouragement of Industrial Research and Development Law, 1984, or the R&D Law, and related regulations. Under the terms of the grants and the R&D Law, Microbot is restricted from transferring any technologies, know-how, manufacturing or manufacturing rights developed using Israeli Innovation Authority grants outside of Israel without the prior approval of Israeli Innovation Authority. Therefore, if aspects of its technologies are deemed to have been developed with Israeli Innovation Authority funding, the discretionary approval of an Israeli Innovation Authority committee would be required for any transfer to third parties outside of Israel of the technologies, know-how, manufacturing or manufacturing rights related to such aspects. Furthermore, the Israeli Innovation Authority may impose certain conditions on any arrangement under which it permits Microbot to transfer technology or development outside of Israel or may not grant such approvals at all.

If approved, the transfer of Israeli Innovation Authority-supported technology or know-how outside of Israel may involve the payment of significant fees, which will depend on the value of the transferred technology or know-how, the total amount Israeli Innovation Authority funding received by Microbot, the number of years since the funding and other factors. These restrictions and requirements for payment may impair Microbot’s ability to sell its technology assets outside of Israel or to outsource or transfer development or manufacturing activities with respect to any product or technology outside of Israel. Furthermore, the amount of consideration available to Microbot’s shareholders in a transaction involving the transfer of technology or know-how developed with Israeli Innovation Authority funding outside of Israel (such as through a merger or other similar transaction) may be reduced by any amounts that Microbot is required to pay to the Israeli Innovation Authority.

Some of Microbot’s employees and officers are obligated to perform military reserve duty in Israel.

Generally, Israeli adult male citizens and permanent residents are obligated to perform annual military reserve duty up to a specified age. They also may be called to active duty at any time under emergency circumstances, which could have a disruptive impact on Microbot’s workforce.

It may be difficult to enforce a non-Israeli judgment against Microbot or its officers and directors.

The operating subsidiary of the Company is incorporated in Israel. Some of Microbot’s executive officers and directors are not residents of the United States, and a substantial portion of Microbot’s assets and the assets of its executive officers and directors are located outside the United States. Therefore, a judgment obtained against Microbot, or any of these persons, including a judgment based on the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws, may not be collectible in the United States and may not necessarily be enforced by an Israeli court. It also may be difficult to affect service of process on these persons in the United States or to assert U.S. securities law claims in original actions instituted in Israel. Additionally, it may be difficult for an investor, or any other person or entity, to initiate an action with respect to U.S. securities laws in Israel. Israeli courts may refuse to hear a claim based on an alleged violation of U.S. securities laws reasoning that Israel is not the most appropriate forum in which to bring such a claim. In addition, even if an Israeli court agrees to hear a claim, it may determine that Israeli law and not U.S. law is applicable to the claim. If U.S. law is found to be applicable, the content of applicable U.S. law often involves the testimony of expert witnesses, which can be a time consuming and costly process. Certain matters of procedure will also be governed by Israeli law. There is little binding case law in Israel that addresses the matters described above. As a result of the difficulty associated with enforcing a judgment against Microbot in Israel, it may be impossible to collect any damages awarded by either a U.S. or foreign court.

Risks Relating to Microbot’s Securities, Governance and Other Matters

If we fail to comply with the continued listing requirements of The Nasdaq Capital Market, our common stock may be delisted and the price of our common stock and our ability to access the capital markets could be negatively impacted.

Our common stock is currently listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market. In order to maintain that listing, we must satisfy minimum financial and other continued listing requirements and standards, including those regarding director independence and independent committee requirements, minimum stockholders’ equity, minimum share price, and certain corporate governance requirements. There can be no assurances that we will be able to comply with the applicable listing standards. In 2018, we effected a 1:15 reverse stock split to address our stock price falling below the minimum share price required by Nasdaq. Failure to meet applicable Nasdaq continued listing standards could result in a delisting of our common stock. A delisting of our common stock from The Nasdaq Capital Market could materially reduce the liquidity of our common stock and result in a corresponding material reduction in the price of our common stock. In addition, delisting could harm our ability to raise capital on terms acceptable to us, or at all, and may result in the potential loss of confidence by investors, employees and fewer business opportunities. Additionally, if we are not eligible for quotation or listing on another exchange, trading of our common stock could be conducted only in the over-the-counter market or on an electronic bulletin board established for unlisted securities such as the Pink Sheets or the OTC Bulletin Board. In such event, it could become more difficult to dispose of, or obtain accurate price quotations for, our common stock, and there would likely also be a reduction in our coverage by securities analysts and the news media, which could cause the price of our common stock to decline further.

We do not expect to pay cash dividends on our common stock.

We anticipate that we will retain our earnings, if any, for future growth and therefore do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our Common Stock in the future. Investors seeking cash dividends should not invest in our Common Stock for that purpose.

Anti-takeover provisions in the Company’s charter and bylaws under Delaware law may prevent or frustrate attempts by stockholders to change the board of directors or current management and could make a third-party acquisition of the Company difficult.

Provisions in the Company’s certificate of incorporation and bylaws may delay or prevent an acquisition or a change in management. These provisions include a classified board of directors. In addition, because the Company is incorporated in Delaware, it is governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the DGCL, which prohibits stockholders owning in excess of 15% of outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with the Company. Although the Company believes these provisions collectively will provide for an opportunity to receive higher bids by requiring potential acquirors to negotiate with the Company’s board of directors, they would apply even if the offer may be considered beneficial by some stockholders. In addition, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by the Company’s stockholders to replace or remove then current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of the board of directors, which is responsible for appointing members of management.

The market price for our Common Stock may be volatile.

The market price for our Common Stock may be volatile and subject to wide fluctuations in response to factors including the following:

In addition, the securities market has from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that are not related to the operating performance of particular companies. These market fluctuations may also materially and adversely affect the market price of shares of our Common Stock.

The issuance of shares upon exercise of outstanding warrants and options could cause immediate and substantial dilution to existing stockholders.

The issuance of shares upon exercise of warrants and options could result in substantial dilution to the interests of other stockholders since the holders of such securities may ultimately convert and sell the full amount issuable on conversion.

We are subject to litigation and may be subject to similar or other litigation in the future, which may divert management’s attention and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We were named as the defendant in a lawsuit, which we refer to as the Matter, captioned Sabby Healthcare Master Fund Ltd. and Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund Ltd., Plaintiffs, against Microbot Medical Inc., Defendant, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the “Court”) (Index No. 654581/2017). The complaint alleged, among other things, that we breached multiple representations and warranties contained in the Securities Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”) related to our June 8, 2017 equity financing, or the Financing, of which the Plaintiffs participated. The complaint sought rescission of the SPA and return of the Plaintiffs’ $3,375,000 purchase price with respect to the Financing, and damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but alleged to exceed $1 million. A trial was held on February 11, 2019. On February 28, 2019, the Court issued a Decision and Order After Trial to rescind the SPA. The rescission would require the Plaintiffs to transfer back to us the shares they purchased in the Financing, and for us to return to Plaintiffs their purchase price of $3.375 million. On March 27, 2019, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal and an Undertaking to stay execution of the judgment pending appeal.  However, management is unable to assess the likelihood that we would be successful in the appeal. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that any adverse outcome would not be material to our consolidated financial position. Additionally, in the event we lose our appeals, we will likely be required to use the proceeds from recent offerings or available cash towards payment of damages and interest on the damages from the date of the decision to the Plaintiffs, and to the Other Investors described below if and to the extent they bring similar lawsuits against us and prevail or if we settle the Sabby litigation, that we otherwise would have used to build our business and develop our technologies into commercial products. In such event, we would be required to raise additional capital sooner than we otherwise would, of which we can give no assurance of success.

On April 4, 2018, we entered into a Tolling and Standstill Agreement with Empery Asset Master, Ltd., Empery Tax Efficient LP, Empery Tax Efficient II LP, and Hudson Bay Master Fund, Ltd., the other investors in the Financing, of whom we refer to as the Other Investors. Pursuant to the Tolling Agreement, among other things, (a) the Other Investors agree not to bring any claims against us arising out of the Matter, (b) the parties agree that if we reach an agreement to settle the claims asserted by the Sabby Funds in the above suit, we will provide the same settlement terms on a pro rata basis to the Other Investors, and the Other Investors will either accept same or waive all of their claims and (c) the parties froze in time the rights and privileges of each party as of the effective date of the Tolling Agreement, until (i) an agreement to settle the suit is executed; (ii) a judgment in the suit is obtained; or (iii) the suit is otherwise dismissed with prejudice.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

Not Applicable.

Item 2. Description of Property.

Microbot’s principal executive office is located at 25 Recreation Drive, Unit 108, Hingham, MA 02043. Microbot also occupies facilities in premises of approximately 6,000 square feet at 8 Hatochen Street, 3^rd Floor, Caesarea, Israel. This facility is expected to provide the space and infrastructure necessary to accommodate its development work based on its current operating plan. Microbot does not own any real property.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

From time to time, we may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of business. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm business.

Sabby Litigation

We were named as the defendant in a lawsuit, which we refer to as the Matter, captioned Sabby Healthcare Master Fund Ltd. and Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund Ltd., Plaintiffs, against Microbot Medical Inc., Defendant, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the “Court”) (Index No. 654581/2017). The complaint alleged, among other things, that we breached multiple representations and warranties contained in the Securities Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”) related to our June 8, 2017 equity financing, or the Financing, of which the Plaintiffs participated. The complaint sought rescission of the SPA and return of the Plaintiffs’ $3,375,000 purchase price with respect to the Financing, and damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but alleged to exceed $1 million. A trial was held on February 11, 2019. On February 28, 2019, the Court issued a Decision and Order After Trial to rescind the SPA. The rescission would require the Plaintiffs to transfer back to us the shares they purchased in the Financing, and for us to return to Plaintiffs their purchase price of $3.375 million. On March 27, 2019, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal and an Undertaking to stay execution of the judgment pending appeal. However, management is unable to assess the likelihood of the likelihood that we would be successful in the appeal. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that any adverse outcome would not be material to our consolidated financial position. Additionally, in the event we lose our appeals, we will likely be required to use the proceeds from recent offerings or available cash towards payment of damages and interest on the damages from the date of the decision to the Plaintiffs, and to the Other Investors described below if and to the extent they bring similar lawsuits against us and prevail or if we settle the Sabby litigation, that we otherwise would have used to build our business and develop our technologies into commercial products. In such event, we would be required to raise additional capital sooner than we otherwise would, of which we can give no assurance of success.

On April 4, 2018, we entered into a Tolling and Standstill Agreement with Empery Asset Master, Ltd., Empery Tax Efficient LP, Empery Tax Efficient II LP, and Hudson Bay Master Fund, Ltd., the other investors in the Financing, of whom we refer to as the Other Investors. Pursuant to the Tolling Agreement, among other things, (a) the Other Investors agree not to bring any claims against us arising out of the Matter, (b) the parties agree that if we reach an agreement to settle the claims asserted by the Sabby Funds in the above suit, we will provide the same settlement terms on a pro rata basis to the Other Investors, and the Other Investors will either accept same or waive all of their claims and (c) the parties froze in time the rights and privileges of each party as of the effective date of the Tolling Agreement, until (i) an agreement to settle the suit is executed; (ii) a judgment in the suit is obtained; or (iii) the suit is otherwise dismissed with prejudice.

Potential Litigation Under 15 U.S.C. §78p(b)

We intend to bring an action against a former shareholder for recovery of short swing profits under 15 U.S.C. §78p(b). As of the time of filing this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have not yet filed the complaint or initiated the action, but we intend to do so shortly after such date.

Other than the foregoing, we are not currently a party in any legal proceeding or governmental regulatory proceeding nor are we currently aware of any pending or potential legal proceeding or governmental regulatory proceeding proposed to be initiated against us that would have a material adverse effect on us or our business.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Our common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “MBOT” since November 29, 2016. Prior to that, our common stock was traded under the symbol “STEM.” The following table sets forth for the periods indicated, the high and low closing prices of our common stock on the NASDAQ Capital Market.

As of March 28, 2019, there were approximately 167 holders of record of our common stock, and the closing sales price of our common stock as reported on the NASDAQ Capital Market was $7.63.

Dividend Policy

We have never paid cash dividends on our common stock and we do not anticipate paying cash dividends on common stock in the foreseeable future. The payment of dividends on our common stock will depend on earnings, financial condition, debt covenants in place, and other business and economic factors affecting us at such time as our Board of Directors may consider relevant. If we do not pay dividends, our common stock may be less valuable because a return on a stockholders’ investment will only occur if our stock price appreciates.

Equity Compensation Plan Information Table

The following table provides information about shares of our common stock that may be issued upon the exercise of options under all of our existing compensation plans as of December 31, 2018.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

This item is not required for a smaller reporting company.

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Forward Looking Statements

Certain information contained in this MD&A includes “forward-looking statements.” Statements which are not historical reflect our current expectations and projections about our future results, performance, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations, prospects and opportunities and are based upon information currently available to us and our management and their interpretation of what is believed to be significant factors affecting our existing and proposed business, including many assumptions regarding future events. Actual results, performance, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations, prospects and opportunities could differ materially and perhaps substantially from those expressed in, or implied by, these forward-looking statements as a result of various risks, uncertainties and other factors, including those risks described in detail in the section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K entitled “Risk Factors” as well as elsewhere in this Annual Report.

Forward-looking statements, which involve assumptions and describe our future plans, strategies, and expectations, are generally identifiable by use of the words “may,” “should,” “would,” “will,” “could,” “scheduled,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “believe,” “intend,” “seek,” or “project” or the negative of these words or other variations on these words or comparable terminology.

In light of these risks and uncertainties, and especially given the nature of our existing and proposed business, there can be no assurance that the forward-looking statements contained in this section and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K will in fact occur. Potential investors should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. Except as expressly required by the federal securities laws, there is no undertaking to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, changed circumstances or any other reason.

Overview

Microbot is a pre-clinical medical device company specializing in the research, design and development of next generation robotic endoluminal surgery devices targeting the minimally invasive surgery space. Microbot is primarily focused on leveraging its micro-robotic technologies with the goal of improving surgical outcomes for patients.

Microbot’s current technological platforms, ViRob^TM, CardioSert^TM and TipCAT^TM, are comprised of proprietary innovative technologies. Using the ViRob platform, Microbot is currently developing its first product candidate: the Self Cleaning Shunt, or SCS^TM, for the treatment of hydrocephalus and Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus, or NPH. Although the SCS utilizes one of our platforms, we are focused on the development of a Multi Generation Pipeline Portfolio utilizing all three of our proprietary technologies.

Microbot has a patent portfolio of 30 issued/allowed patents and 21 patent applications pending worldwide.

Technological Platforms

ViRob

The ViRob is an autonomous crawling micro-robot which can be controlled remotely or within the body. Its miniature dimensions are expected to allow it to navigate and crawl in different natural spaces within the human body, including blood vessels, the digestive tract and the respiratory system as well as artificial spaces such as shunts, catheters, ports, etc. Its unique structure is expected to give it the ability to move in tight spaces and curved passages as well as the ability to remain within the human body for prolonged time. The SCS product was developed using the ViRob technology.

CardioSert

On May 25, 2018, Microbot acquired a patent-protected technology from CardioSert Ltd., a privately-held medical device company based in Israel. The CardioSert technology contemplates a combination of a guidewire and microcatheter, technologies that are broadly used for surgery within a tubular organ or structure such as a blood vessel or duct. The CardioSert technology features a unique guidewire delivery system with steering and stiffness control capabilities which when developed is expected to give the physician the ability to control the tip curvature, to adjust tip load to varying degrees of stiffness in a gradually continuous manner. The CardioSert technology was originally developed to support interventional cardiologists in crossing chronic total occlusions (CTO) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures and has the potential to be used in other spaces and applications, such as peripheral intervention, and neurosurgery. CardioSert was part of a technological incubator supported by the Israel Innovation Authorities (formerly known as the Office of the Chief Scientist, or OCS), and a device based on the technology has successfully completed pre-clinical testing.

TipCAT

The TipCAT is a disposable self-propelled locomotive device that is specially designed to advance in tubular anatomies. The TipCAT is a mechanism comprising a series of interconnected balloons at the device’s tip that provides the TipCAT with its forward locomotion capability. The device can self-propel within natural tubular lumens such as the blood vessels, respiratory and the urinary and GI tracts. A single channel of air/fluid supply sequentially inflates and deflates a series of balloons creating an inchworm like forward motion. The TipCAT maintains a standard working channel for treatments. Unlike standard access devices such as guidewires, catheters for vascular access and endoscopes, the TipCAT does not need to be pushed into the patient’s lumen using external pressure; rather, it will gently advance itself through the organ’s anatomy. As a result, the TipCAT is designed to be able to reach every part of the lumen under examination regardless of the topography, be less operator dependent, and greatly reduce the likelihood of damage to lumen structure. The TipCAT thus offers functionality features equivalent to modern tubular access devices, along with advantages associated with its physiologically adapted self-propelling mechanism, flexibility, and design. Microbot is no longer pursuing the development of the TipCAT as a colonoscopy tool but is currently exploring the use of the TipCAT for minimally invasive endovascular neurosurgical applications.

Financial Operations Overview

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses consist primarily of salaries and related expenses and overhead for Microbot’s research, development and engineering personnel, prototype materials and research studies, obtaining and maintaining Microbot’s patent portfolio. Microbot expenses its research and development costs as incurred.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of the costs associated with management costs, professional fees for accounting, auditing, consulting and legal services, and allocated overhead expenses.

Microbot expects that its general and administrative expenses may increase in the future as it expands its operating activities, maintains and expands its patent portfolio and incurs additional costs associated with the Merger, the preparation of becoming a public company and maintaining compliance with exchange listing and SEC requirements. Microbot expects these potential increases will likely include management costs, legal fees, accounting fees, directors’ and officers’ liability insurance premiums and expenses associated with investor relations.

Income Taxes

Microbot has incurred net losses and has not recorded any income tax benefits for the losses. It is still in its development stage and has not yet generated revenues, therefore, it is more likely than not that sufficient taxable income will not be available for the tax losses to be fully utilized in the future.

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates

Microbot’s management’s discussion and analysis of its financial condition and results of operations are based on its financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. The preparation of these financial statements requires Microbot to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements. On an ongoing basis, Microbot evaluates its estimates and judgments, including those related to accrued research and development expenses. Microbot bases its estimates on historical experience, known trends and events, and various other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ materially from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

While Microbot’s significant accounting policies are described in more detail in the notes to its financial statements, Microbot believes the following accounting policies are the most critical for fully understanding and evaluating its financial condition and results of operations.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The Company measures the fair value of certain of its financial instruments (such as the derivative warrant liabilities) on a recurring basis.

A fair value hierarchy is used to rank the quality and reliability of the information used to determine fair values. Financial assets and liabilities carried at fair value will be classified and disclosed in one of the following three categories:

Foreign Currency Translation

Microbot’s functional currency is the U.S. dollars, and its reporting currency is the U.S. dollar.

Government Grant and Input Tax Credit Recoveries

Microbot from time to time has received, and may in the future continue to receive, grants from the Israeli Innovation Authority to cover eligible company expenditures. These are presented as other income in the statement of operations and comprehensive loss as the grant funds are used for or applied towards a number of Microbot’s operating expenses, such as salaries and benefits, research and development and professional and consulting fees. The recoveries are recognized in the corresponding period when such expenses are incurred.

Research and Development Expenses

Microbot recognizes research and development expenses as incurred, typically estimated based on an evaluation of the progress to completion of specific tasks using data such as clinical site activations, manufacturing steps completed, or information provided by vendors on their actual costs incurred. Microbot determines the estimates by reviewing contracts, vendor agreements and purchase orders, and through discussions with internal clinical personnel and external service providers as to the progress or stage of completion of trials or services and the agreed-upon fee to be paid for such services. These estimates are made as of each balance sheet date based on facts and circumstances known to Microbot at that time. If the actual timing of the performance of services or the level of effort varies from the estimate, Microbot will adjust the estimate accordingly. Nonrefundable advance payments for goods and services, including fees for process development or manufacturing and distribution of clinical supplies that will be used in future research and development activities, are capitalized as prepaid expenses and recognized as expense in the period that the related goods are consumed or services are performed.

Microbot may pay fees to third-parties for manufacturing and other services that are based on contractual milestones that may result in uneven payment flows. There may be instances in which payments made to vendors will exceed the level of services provided and result in a prepayment of the research and development expense.

Results of Operations

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2018 and 2017

The following table sets forth the key components of Microbot’s results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 (in thousands):

Research and Development Expenses. Microbot’s research and development expenses were approximately $2,515,000 for the year ended December 31, 2018, compared to approximately $1,100,000 for the same period in 2017. The increase in research and development expenses of approximately $1,415,000 in 2018 was primarily due to an increase in payroll, stock-based compensation, professional services and patents expenses. Microbot expects its research and development expenses to increase over time as Microbot advances its development programs and begins pre-clinical and clinical trials for the SCS.

General and Administrative Expenses. General and administrative expenses were approximately $4,729,000 for the year ended December 31, 2018, compared to approximately $4,167,000 for the same period in 2017. The substantial increase in general and administrative expenses of approximately $562,000 in 2018 was primarily due to share-based compensation of $907,000, offset by lower public relations and other professional service fees. Microbot believes its general and administrative expenses may increase over time as it advances its programs, increases its headcount and operating activities and incurs expenses associated with being a public company.

Financing Expenses. Financing income was approximately $4,000 for the year ended December 31, 2018, compared to expenses of approximately $2,322,000 for the same period in 2017. The net decrease in financial expenses was primarily due to revaluation and extinguishment of the convertible note and change in fair value of derivative warrant liabilities.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Microbot has incurred losses since inception and negative cash flows from operating activities for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017. As of December 31, 2018, Microbot had a net working capital of approximately $1,071,000, consisting primarily of cash and cash equivalents. Microbot anticipates that it will continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future as it continues research and development efforts of its product candidates, hires additional staff, including clinical, scientific, operational, financial and management personnel, and incurs additional costs associated with being a public company.

Microbot has funded its operations through the issuance of capital stock, grants from the Israeli Innovation Authority, and convertible debt. Since inception (November 2010) through December 31, 2018, Microbot has raised gross cash proceeds of approximately $18,000,000, and incurred a total cumulative loss of approximately $27,864,000.

On January 14, 2019, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with an accredited institutional investor providing for the issuance and sale by the Company to the purchaser of an aggregate of (i) 330,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, at a purchase price per share of $6.50 and (ii) 125,323 pre-funded warrants each to purchase one share of common stock, at a purchase price per Pre-Funded Warrant of $6.49. The gross proceeds to the Company were approximately $3.0 million. The closing of the offering took place on January 15, 2019. The pre-funded warrants were exercised in full in January 2019.

On January 15, 2019, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with certain accredited institutional investors providing for the issuance and sale by the Company to the purchasers of an aggregate of 590,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, at a purchase price per share of $10.00. The gross proceeds to the Company were approximately $5.9 million. The closing of the offering took place on January 17, 2019.

On January 23, 2019 the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with accredited institutional investors providing for the issuance and sale by the Company to the purchasers of an aggregate of 250,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, at a purchase price per share of $9.875. The gross proceeds to the Company were approximately $2.47 million. The closing of the offering took place on January 25, 2019.

In November 2017, Microbot was awarded an additional non-dilutive grant of up to 2,610,000 Israeli New Shekels (approximately $735,000) from the Israel Innovation Authority. The grant provides additional sources to be utilized by Microbot for the continued development of the Self-Cleaning Shunt for the treatment of hydrocephalus and Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus. The grant funds may be used for or applied towards a number of research and development expenses, such as employees’ salaries, research and development expenses (including materials, as well as professional and consulting fees. The recoveries are recognized in the corresponding period when such expenses are incurred. With respect to such grant, Microbot is committed to pay royalties, as, if and when it successfully commercializes the SCS and generates revenue from sales of the SCS, at a rate of between 3% to 3.5% on sales proceeds up to the total amount of grants received, linked to the dollar, plus interest at an annual rate of USD LIBOR. Under the terms of the grant and applicable law, Microbot is restricted from transferring any technologies, know-how, manufacturing or manufacturing rights developed using the grant outside of Israel without the prior approval of the Israel Innovation Authority. Microbot has no obligation to repay the grant, if the SCS project fails, is unsuccessful or aborted before any sales are generated. The financial risk is assumed completely by the IIA.

Microbot believes that its net cash will be sufficient to fund its operations for at least 12 months and fund operations necessary to continue development activities of the SCS and TipCAT.

Microbot plans to continue to fund its research and development and other operating expenses, other development activities relating to additional product candidates, and the associated losses from operations, through future issuances of debt and/or equity securities and possibly additional grants from the Israeli Innovation Authority. The capital raises from issuances of convertible debt and equity securities could result in additional dilution to Microbot’s shareholders. In addition, to the extent Microbot determines to incur additional indebtedness, Microbot’s incurrence of additional debt could result in debt service obligations and operating and financing covenants that would restrict its operations. Microbot can provide no assurance that financing will be available in the amounts it needs or on terms acceptable to it, if at all. If Microbot is not able to secure adequate additional working capital when it becomes needed, it may be required to make reductions in spending, extend payment terms with suppliers, liquidate assets where possible and/or suspend or curtail planned research programs. Any of these actions could materially harm Microbot’s business.

Cash Flows

The following table provides a summary of the net cash flow activity for each of the periods set forth below (in thousands):

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2018 and 2017

Cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2018 was approximately $4,916,000, calculated by adjusting net loss from operations by approximately $2,376,000 to eliminate non-cash and expense items not involving cash flows such as depreciation and accumulated interest on convertible loans, as well as other changes in current assets and liabilities resulting in non-cash adjustments in the income statement. Cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2017 was approximately $4,856,000, similarly adjusted by approximately $2,733,000. Net cash used by investing activities of approximately $223,000 for the year ended December 31, 2018 consisted of leasehold improvement moving to new offices in Israel compared to approximately $58,000 in the year ended December 31, 2017. Net cash used by financing activities of approximately $412,000 for the year ended December 31, 2018 consisted of deferred expenses relating to issuance of common stock compared to approximately $13,019,000 in the year ended December 31, 2017.

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements

Microbot has no off-balance sheet arrangements that have or are reasonably likely to have a current or future effect on our financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenues or expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

Interest Rate Risk

Microbot’s cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2018 consisted of readily available checking and money market funds. Microbot’s primary exposure to market risk is interest income sensitivity, which is affected by changes in the general level of U.S. interest rates. However, because of the short-term nature of the instruments in Microbot’s portfolio, a sudden change in market interest rates would not be expected to have a material impact on Microbot’s financial condition and/or results of operations. Microbot does not believe that its cash or cash equivalents have significant risk of default or illiquidity. While Microbot believes its cash and cash equivalents do not contain excessive risk, Microbot cannot provide absolute assurance that in the future its investments will not be subject to adverse changes in market value. In addition, Microbot maintains significant amounts of cash and cash equivalents at one or more financial institutions that are in excess of federally insured limits.

Foreign Exchange Risks

Our financial statements are denominated in U.S. dollars and financial results are denominated in U.S. dollars, while a significant portion of our business is conducted, and a substantial portion of our operating expenses are payable, in currencies other than the U.S. dollar.

Exchange rate fluctuations may have an adverse impact on our future revenues, if any, or expenses as presented in the financial statements. We may in the future use financial instruments, such as forward foreign currency contracts, in its management of foreign currency exposure. These contracts would primarily require us to purchase and sell certain foreign currencies with or for U.S. dollars at contracted rates. We may be exposed to a credit loss in the event of non-performance by the counterparties of these contracts. In addition, these financial instruments may not adequately manage our foreign currency exposure. Our results of operations could be adversely affected if we are unable to successfully manage currency fluctuations in the future.

Effects of Inflation

Inflation generally affects Microbot by increasing its clinical trial costs. Microbot does not believe that inflation and changing prices had a significant impact on its results of operations for any periods presented herein.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

The consolidated financial statements and supplementary data required by this item are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K immediately following Part IV and are incorporated herein by reference.

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.

None.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.

Disclosure Controls and Procedures. We maintain a system of disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Exchange Act). As required by Rule 13a-15(b) under the Exchange Act, management of the Company, under the direction of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, reviewed and performed an evaluation of the effectiveness of design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of December 31, 2018. Based on that review and evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, along with the management of the Company, have determined that as of December 31, 2018, the disclosure controls and procedures were effective to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms and were effective to provide reasonable assurance that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.

Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a – 15(f) of the Exchange Act). There are inherent limitations to the effectiveness of any internal control, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of controls. Accordingly, even effective internal controls can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation. Further, because of changes in conditions, the effectiveness of internal control may vary over time. We have assessed the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a -15(f) of the Exchange Act) as of December 31, 2018, and have concluded that, as of December 31, 2018, our internal control over financial reporting was effective.

This annual report does not include an attestation report of our registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by our registered public accounting firm pursuant to the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit us to provide only management’s report in this annual report.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting, identified in connection with the evaluation of such internal control that occurred during our last fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Item 9B. Other Information.

None.

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance.

Board of Directors

We currently have six directors serving on our Board of Directors (our “Board”). The Board currently consists of Harel Gadot, Yoav Waizer, Yoseph Bornstein, Scott Burell, Martin Madden and Prattipati Laxminarain.

Messrs. Gadot, Waizer and Madden are Class I directors whose terms expire at the Company’s 2019 annual meeting of stockholders. Mr. Burell is a Class II director whose term expires at the Company’s 2020 annual meeting of stockholders. Messrs. Bornstein and Laxminarain are Class III directors whose terms expire at the Company’s 2021 annual meeting of stockholders.

The following table lists the names, ages and positions of the individuals who serve as executive officers and directors of the Company, as of March 28, 2019:

Harel Gadot, became President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company’s Board following the consummation of the merger of C&RD Israel Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, with and into Microbot Medical Ltd. (“Microbot Israel”), with Microbot Israel surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the “Merger”). Mr. Gadot is a co-founder of Microbot Israel and has served as Microbot Israel’s Chief Executive Officer since Microbot Israel was founded in November 2010. He has been the Chairman of Microbot Israel’s board of directors since July 2014. He also serves as the Chairman of XACT Robotics Ltd., an Israel-based private company seeking to develop a novel platform technology for robotic needle steering in minimally invasive interventional procedures such as biopsies and ablations, since August 2013 and MEDX Xelerator L.P., a medical device and digital health Israeli incubator, since July 2016. From December 2007 to April 2010 Mr. Gadot was a Worldwide Group Marketing Director at Ethicon Inc., a Johnson and Johnson Company, where he was responsible for the global strategic marketing of the Company. Mr. Gadot also held management positions, as well as leading regional strategic position for Europe, Middle-East and Africa, as well as In Israel, while at Johnson and Johnson. Mr. Gadot served as director for ConTIPI Ltd. from August 2010 until November 2013 when ConTIPI Ltd. was acquired by Kimberly-Clark Corporation. Mr. Gadot holds a B.Sc.in Business from Siena College, Loudonville NY, and an M.B.A. from the University of Manchester, UK. The Company believes that Mr. Gadot is qualified to serve as Chairman of the Board and as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company due to his extensive experience in strategic marketing and general management in the medical device industry.

Yoav Waizer, became a director of the Company following the Merger and has served as a member of the Board of Directors of Microbot Israel since May 2015. Mr. Waizer provides CFO services on a part-time basis to a number of venture capital funds and companies; including to Israeli Technology Investments (ITI) Fund, Next Gear Venture Partners L.P. and to Medica Venture Partners. Mr. Waizer served as CFO & COO at Cedar Fund, a venture capital fund focuses on investing in Israel-related high-tech companies and prior to that Mr. Waizer was the CFO of Star Ventures Israel, the Israeli fund of Star Ventures, a $1 billion venture capital fund investing in all stages of development within the Telecom, Enterprise S/W, Wireless and Life Sciences sectors. Mr. Waizer is currently a director of Yeda Research & Development Co. Ltd., the technology transfer arm of the Weizmann Institute of Science, and XACT Robotics Ltd., a private Israeli company developing novel platform robotic technology for use in minimally invasive procedures. Mr. Waizer was the CFO on a part-time basis of MEDX Xelerator L.P., a medical device and digital health Israeli incubator. Mr. Waizer holds Master of Business Administration in Information Systems and B.Sc. in Accounting and Statistics, both from the Tel-Aviv University. The Company believes that Mr. Waizer is qualified to serve as a member of the Company’s board due to his extensive investment experience and extensive knowledge of the life sciences industry.

Yoseph Bornstein, became a director of the Company following the Merger. Mr. Bornstein is a co-founder of Microbot Israel and has been a member of the Board of Directors since Microbot Israel was founded in November 2010. Mr. Bornstein founded Shizim Ltd., a life science holding group in October 2000 and has served as its president since then. Mr. Bornstein is the Chairman of GCP Clinical Studies Ltd., a provider of clinical research services and educational programs in Israel since January 2002. He is the Chairman of Biotis Ltd., a service company for the bio-pharmaceutical industry, since June 2000. In addition, he is the Chairman of Dolphin Medical Ltd., a service company for the medical device industry, since April 2012 and the Chairman of ASIS Enterprises B.B.G. Ltd., a business August 2007. In October 1992, Mr. Bornstein founded Pharmateam Ltd., an Israeli company that specialized in representing international pharmaceutical companies which was sold in 2000. Mr. Bornstein is also a founder of a number of other privately held life-science companies. Mr. Bornstein served as the Biotechnology Committee Chairman of the Unites States-Israel Science & Technology Commission (the “USISTF”) from September 2002 to February 2005 as well as a consultant for USISTF from September 2002 to February 2005. He is also the founder of ILSI-Israel Life Science Industry Organization (who was integrated into IATI) and ITTN-Israel Tech Transfer Organization. The Company believes that Mr. Bornstein is qualified to serve as a member of the Board due to his extensive experience in, and knowledge of, the life sciences industry and international business.

Scott R. Burell, became a director of the Company following the Merger. Since August 1, 2018, Mr. Burell has been the Chief Financial Officer of AIVITA Biomedical, Inc., a private biopharmaceutical company. From November 2006 until its sale to Invitae Corp. in November 2017, he was the Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of CombiMatrix Corporation (NASDAQ: CBMX), a family health-focused clinical molecular diagnostic laboratory specializing in pre-implantation genetic screening, prenatal diagnosis, miscarriage analysis, and pediatric developmental disorders. He successfully led the split-off of CombiMatrix in 2007 from its former parent, has led several successful public and private debt and equity financing transactions as well as CombiMatrix’s reorganization in 2010. Prior to this, Mr. Burell had served as CombiMatrix’s Vice President of Finance since November 2001 and as its Controller from February 2001 to November 2001. From May 1999 to first joining CombiMatrix in February 2001, Mr. Burell was the Controller for Network Commerce, Inc., a publicly traded technology and information infrastructure company located in Seattle. Prior to this, Mr. Burell spent 9 years with Arthur Andersen’s Audit and Business Advisory practice in Seattle. During his tenure in public accounting, Mr. Burell worked with many clients, both public and private, in the high-tech and healthcare markets, and was involved in numerous public offerings, spin-offs, mergers and acquisitions. Mr. Burell is a Board member of Collplant Holdings, Ltd. (Nasdaq: CLGN), an Israeli -based publicly traded biotechnology company focused on regenerative medicine. Mr. Burell is also a Board member of Mer Telemanagement Solutions Ltd. (Nasdaq: MTSL), an Israeli-based publicly traded telecommunications services company. Mr. Burell obtained his Washington state CPA license in 1992 and is a certified public accountant (currently inactive). He holds Bachelor of Science degrees in Accounting and Business Finance from Central Washington University. The Company believes Mr. Burell’s qualifications to serve on the Board include his experience as an executive of a public life sciences company and knowledge of financial accounting in the medical technology field.

Martin Madden, has been a director of the Company since February 6, 2017. Mr. Madden has held various positions at Johnson & Johnson and its affiliates from 1986 to January 2017, most recently as Vice President, Research & Development of DePuy Synthes, a Johnson & Johnson Company, from February 2016 to January 2017. Prior to that, from July 2015 to February 2016, Mr. Madden was the Vice President, New Product Development of Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices. From January 2012 to July 2015, Mr. Madden was the Vice President, Research & Development of Johnson & Johnson’s Global Surgery Group. Mr. Madden holds a MBA from Columbia University, a M.S. from Carnegie Mellon University in Mechanical Engineering, and a B.S. from the University of Dayton in Mechanical Engineering. The Company believes that Mr. Madden is qualified to serve as a member of the Board due to his extensive experience in research and development, portfolio planning, technology assessment and assimilation, and project management and budgeting.

Prattipati Laxminarain, has been a director of the Company since December 6, 2017. From April 2006 through October 2017, Mr. Laxminarain served as Worldwide President at Codman Neuro, a global neurosurgery and neurovascular company that offers a portfolio of devices for hydrocephalus management, neuro intensive care and cranial surgery and other technologies, and which was part of DePuy Synthes Companies of Johnson & Johnson. Mr. Laxminarain holds an MBA from Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, India and a Bachelor of Engineering from Osmania University, Hyderabad, India. The Company believes that Mr. Laxminarain is qualified as a Board member of the Company because of his extensive experience working with medical device companies and knowledge of the industries in which the Company intends to compete.

Executive Officers

Following are the name, age and other information for our named executive officers, as of March 28, 2019. All company officers have been appointed to serve until their successors are elected and qualified or until their earlier resignation or removal. Information regarding Mr. Gadot is set forth above under “–Board of Directors.”

David Ben Naim, became the Company’s part-time Chief Financial Officer following the consummation of the Merger. Mr. Ben Naim is the general manager of DBN Finance Services Ltd., a company which provides outsourcing financial services to public and private companies, since 2014, including the Company. Through DBN Finance Services, Mr. Ben Naim has acted as the outsourced CFO for Emerald Medical Applications Corp. (OTC:MRLA), a digital health startup company engaged in the development, sale and service of imaging solutions, Tempramed Inc., a private medical device company, Vonetize PLC (TASE:VNTZ), an Israeli company that offers video on demand and over-the-top content services, Unet Credit Finance Services Ltd. (TASE:UNCR-M), and Todos Medical Ltd. (OTC:TOMDF), an Israeli cancer in-vitro-diagnostic company engaging in the development of a series of blood tests for the early detection of a variety of cancers. Prior to that, Mr. Ben Naim served as Chief Financial Officer for several companies in the biomedical and technology industries. From July 2012 to September 2014, Mr. Ben Naim served as Chief Financial Officer for Insuline Medical Ltd. (TASE: INSL), an Israel-based company focused on improving performance of insulin treatment methods. From 2008 until 2011, Mr. Ben Naim served as Chief Financial Officer of Crow Technologies 1977 Ltd. (OTC:CRWTF), a company that designs, develops, manufactures and sells a broad range of security and alarm systems. From 2007 to 2008, Mr. Ben Naim served as Chief Financial Officer of Ilex Medical Ltd. (TASE:ILX), a leading company in the medical diagnostics field. From 2003 to 2007, Mr. Ben Naim was the Corporate Controller of Tadiran Telecom Ltd. He started his career in 1998 at Deloitte & Touche where he left in 2003 as an Audit Senior Manager. Mr. Ben Naim holds a B.A. in social sciences from Open University, Israel, a CPA license from Ramat Gan College, Israel, and an M.B.A. from Ono Academic College, Israel.

Committees of the Board of Directors

Presently, the Board has three standing committees — the Audit Committee, the Compensation and Stock Option Committee (the “Compensation Committee”), and the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee (the “Corporate Governance Committee”). All members of the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee, and the Corporate Governance Committee are, and are required by the charters of the respective committees to be, independent as determined under Nasdaq Listing rules.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee is composed of Messrs. Burell, Madden and Bornstein. Each of the members of the Audit Committee is independent, and the Board has determined that Mr. Burell is an “audit committee financial expert,” as defined in SEC rules. The Audit Committee acts pursuant to a written charter which is available through our website at www.microbotmedical.com.

The primary function of the Audit Committee is to assist the Board of Directors in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities. The Audit Committee does this primarily by reviewing the Company’s financial reports and other financial information as well as the Company’s systems of internal controls regarding finance, accounting, legal compliance, and ethics that management and the Board of Directors have established. The Audit Committee also assesses the Company’s auditing, accounting and financial processes more generally. The Audit Committee recommends to the Board of Directors the appointment of a firm of independent auditors to audit the financial statements of the Company and meets with such personnel of the Company to review the scope and the results of the annual audit, the amount of audit fees, the company’s internal accounting controls, the Company’s financial statements contained in this proxy statement, and other related matters.

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee is composed of Messrs. Waizer, Madden and Bornstein. Each of the members of the Compensation Committee is independent. The Compensation Committee acts pursuant to a written charter which is available through our website at www.microbotmedical.com.

The Compensation Committee acts pursuant to a written charter. The Compensation Committee makes recommendations to the Board of Directors and management concerning salaries in general, determines executive compensation and approves incentive compensation for employees and consultants.

Corporate Governance Committee

The Corporate Governance Committee is composed of Messrs. Waizer, Laxminarain and Burell. Each of the members of the Corporate Governance Committee is independent. The Corporate Governance Committee acts pursuant to a written charter which is available through our website at www.microbotmedical.com.

The Corporate Governance Committee oversees nominations to the Board and considers the experience, ability and character of potential nominees to serve as directors, as well as particular skills or knowledge that may be desirable in light of the Company’s position at any time. From time to time, the Corporate Governance Committee may engage the services of a paid search firm to help the Corporate Governance Committee identify potential nominees to the Board. The Corporate Governance Committee and Board seek to nominate and appoint candidates to the Board who have significant business experience, technical expertise or personal attributes, or a combination of these, sufficient to suggest, in the Board’s judgment, that the candidate would have the ability to help direct the affairs of the company and enhance the Board as a whole. The Corporate Governance Committee may identify potential candidates through any reliable means available, including recommendations of past or current members of the Board from their knowledge of the industry and of the Company. The Corporate Governance Committee also considers past service on the Board or on the board of directors of other publicly traded or technology focused companies. The Corporate Governance Committee has not adopted a formulaic approach to evaluating potential nominees to the Board; it does not have a formal policy concerning diversity, for example. Rather, the Corporate Governance Committee weighs and considers the experience, expertise, intellect, and judgment of potential nominees irrespective of their race, gender, age, religion, or other personal characteristics. The Corporate Governance Committee may look for nominees that can bring new skill sets or diverse business perspectives. Potential candidates recommended by security holders will be considered as provided in the company’s “Policy Regarding Shareholder Candidates for Nomination as a Director,” which sets forth the procedures and conditions for such recommendations. This policy is available through our website at www.microbotmedical.com.

There were no material changes to the procedures by which securityholders may recommend nominees to the Board, since the Company last provided the disclosure in this section.

Director Oversight and Qualifications

While management is responsible for the day-to-day management of the risks the company faces, the Board, as a whole and through its committees, has responsibility for the oversight of risk management. An important part of risk management is not only understanding the risks facing the company and what steps management is taking to manage those risks, but also understanding what level of risk is appropriate for the company. In support of this oversight function, the Board receives regular reports from our Chief Executive Officer and members of senior management on operational, financial, legal, and regulatory issues and risks. The Audit Committee additionally is charged under its charter with oversight of financial risk, including the company’s internal controls, and it receives regular reports from management, the company’s internal auditors and the company’s independent auditors. The chairman of the Board and independent members of the Board work together to provide strong, independent oversight of the company’s management and affairs through its standing committees and, when necessary, special meetings of directors.

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

We have adopted a Code of Ethics and Conduct that applies to all of our directors, officers, employees, and consultants. A copy of our code of ethics is posted on our website at www.microbotmedical.com. We intend to disclose any substantive amendment or waivers to this code on our website. There were no substantive amendments or waivers to this code in 2018.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), requires our executive officers, directors, and persons who own more than 10% of a registered class of our equity securities, to file with the SEC reports of ownership of our securities and changes in reported ownership. Executive officers, directors and greater than 10% beneficial owners are required by SEC rules to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) reports they file. Based solely on a review of the copies of such forms furnished to us, or written representations from the reporting persons that no Form 5 was required, we believe that, during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, all Section 16(a) filing requirements applicable to our officers, directors and greater than 10% beneficial owners have been met, with the exception of Mr. Ben Naim who failed to timely file a 4 report showing 1 transaction.

Item 11. Executive Compensation.

The following table sets forth information regarding each element of compensation that was paid or awarded to the named executive officers of the Company for the periods indicated.

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

The following table presents the outstanding equity awards held by each of the named executive officers as of the end of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

Harel Gadot Employment Agreement

The Company entered into an employment agreement (the “Gadot Agreement”) with Harel Gadot on November 28, 2016, to serve as the Company’s Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer, on an indefinite basis subject to the termination provisions described in the Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Gadot Agreement, Mr. Gadot shall receive an annual base salary of $360,000. The salary will be reviewed on an annual basis by the Compensation Committee of the Company to determine potential increases taking into account such performance metrics and criteria as established by the Executive and the Company.

Mr. Gadot shall also be entitled to receive a target annual cash bonus of up to a maximum amount of 40% of base salary, which maximum amount was paid for the 2018 fiscal year.

Mr. Gadot shall be further entitled to a monthly automobile allowance and tax gross up on such allowance of $1,150, and shall be granted options to purchase shares of common stock of the Company representing 5% of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company, based on vesting and other terms to be determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.

In the event Mr. Gadot’s employment is terminated as a result of death, Mr. Gadot’s estate would be entitled to receive any earned annual salary, bonus, reimbursement of business expenses and accrued vacation, if any, that is unpaid up to the date of Mr. Gadot’s death.

In the event Mr. Gadot’s employment is terminated as a result of disability, Mr. Gadot would be entitled to receive any earned annual salary, bonus, reimbursement of business expenses and accrued vacation, if any, incurred up to the date of termination.

In the event Mr. Gadot’s employment is terminated by the Company for cause, Mr. Gadot would be entitled to receive any compensation then due and payable incurred up to the date of termination.

In the event Mr. Gadot’s employment is terminated by the Company without cause, he would be entitled to receive (i) any earned annual salary; (ii) 12 months’ pay and full benefits, (iii) a pro rata bonus equal to the maximum target bonus for that calendar year; (iv) the dollar value of unused and accrued vacation days; and (v) applicable premiums (inclusive of premiums for Mr. Gadot’s dependents) pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, as amended, for twelve (12) months from the date of termination for any benefits plan sponsored by the Company. In addition, 100% of any unvested portion of his stock options shall immediately vest and become exercisable.

The agreement contains customary non-competition and non-solicitation provisions pursuant to which Mr. Gadot agrees not to compete and solicit with the Company. Mr. Gadot also agreed to customary terms regarding confidentiality and ownership of intellectual property.

Hezi Himelfarb Employment Agreement

We entered into an employment agreement (the “Himelfarb Agreement”) with Mr. Himelfarb on December 5, 2016, to serve as our Chief Operating Office and General Manager, on an indefinite basis subject to the termination provisions described in the Himelfarb Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Himelfarb Agreement, Mr. Himelfarb shall receive a base salary of 64,000 New Israeli Shekel (NIS) per month or NIS 768,000 per year, or the equivalent of approximately $203,714 per annum based on an exchange rate of $.265 for NIS 1.0.

Mr. Himelfarb shall be entitled to grants or payments subject to the adoption by the Company at its discretion of a bonus plan or policy.

Under the Himelfarb Agreement, Mr. Himelfarb was entitled to participate in the Company’s motor vehicle program and receive a motor vehicle from the Company’s vehicle pool. The Company shall pay an amount equal to 8.33% of Mr. Himelfarb’s salary, which shall be allocated to a fund for severance pay to Mr. Himelfarb, and an additional amount equal to 6.25% of Mr. Himelfarb’s salary (6.5% as of January 1, 2017), which shall be allocated to a pension plan, in addition to disability insurance contributions and as otherwise may be required by applicable Israeli law from time to time. The Company shall also contribute to an educational fund an amount equal to 7.5% of each monthly payment of Mr. Himelfarb’s full salary. Mr. Himelfarb is also entitled to options to purchase 1,087,627 shares of the Company’s common stock, which represents 3% of the Company’s issued and outstanding shares of common stock as of the closing of the Company’s merger transaction with the Subsidiary on November 28, 2016.

The Himelfarb Agreement contains customary non-competition provisions pursuant to which Mr. Himelfarb agrees not to compete with the Company. Mr. Himelfarb also agreed to customary terms regarding confidentiality and ownership of intellectual property.

Effective as of February 1, 2019, Mr. Himelfarb, a member of the Board of Directors of the Company, and the Company’s Chief Operating Officer, resigned from all positions with the Company. Effective as of February 1, 2019, Mr. Himelfarb also resigned from his position as General Manager of Microbot Medical Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Mr. Himelfarb has remained to assist with the transition of his duties. As a result of certain termination provisions of the Himelfarb Agreement, Mr. Himelfarb is entitled to six months of compensation as a result of such resignation.

David Ben Naim Services Agreement

We entered into a services agreement (the “Services Agreement”) with DBN Finance Services effective October 31, 2016, to provide outsourced CFO services. Pursuant to the terms of the Services Agreement, DBN Finance Services will provide its services exclusively through Mr. David Ben Naim, who will serve as the principal financial and accounting officer of Microbot Israel and the Company. Mr. Ben Naim’s engagement will continue on an indefinite basis subject to the termination provisions described in the Agreement.

Pursuant to the Agreement, the Company shall pay the Service Provider a fixed fee of NIS 22,000, or the equivalent of approximately $5,835 per month based on an exchange rate of $.265 for NIS1.0, plus VAT per month, and the Company shall reimburse DBN Finance Services for reasonable and customary out of pocket expenses incurred by it or Mr. Ben Naim connection with the performance of the duties under the Services Agreement. In addition, the Company shall maintain for the benefit of Mr. Ben Naim, a Directors and Officers insurance policy, according to the Company’s policy for other directors and officers of the Company.

Both the Company and DBN Finance Services shall have the right to terminate the Agreement for any reason or without reason at any time by furnishing the other party with a 30-day notice of termination. The Company shall further be entitled to terminate the Services Agreement for “cause” without notice, in which case neither DBN Finance Services nor Mr. Ben Naim shall be entitled to any compensation due to such early termination.

DBN Finance Services and Mr. Ben Naim agreed to customary provisions regarding confidentiality and intellectual property ownership. The Services Agreement also contains customary non-competition and non-solicitation provisions pursuant to which DBN Finance Services and Mr. Ben Naim agree not to compete and solicit with the Company during the term of the Agreement and for a period of twelve months following the termination of the Agreement.

Indemnification Agreements

The Company generally enters into indemnification agreements with each of its directors and executive officers. Pursuant to the indemnification agreements, the Company has agreed to indemnify and hold harmless these current and former directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law. The agreements generally cover expenses that a director or officer incurs or amounts that a director or officer becomes obligated to pay because of any proceeding to which he is made or threatened to be made a party or participant by reason of his service as a current or former director, officer, employee or agent of the Company, provided that he acted in good faith and in a manner he reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the Company. The agreements also provide for the advancement of expenses to the directors and officers subject to specified conditions. There are certain exceptions to the Company’s obligation to indemnify the directors and officers, and, with certain exceptions, with respect to proceedings that he initiates.

Limits on Liability and Indemnification

We provide directors and officers insurance for our current directors and officers.

Our certificate of incorporation eliminates the personal liability of our directors to the fullest extent permitted by law. The certificate of incorporation further provides that the Company will indemnify its officers and directors to the fullest extent permitted by law. We believe that this indemnification covers at least negligence on the part of the indemnified parties. Insofar as indemnification for liabilities under the Securities Act may be permitted to our directors, officers, and controlling persons under the foregoing provisions or otherwise, we have been advised that in the opinion of the Securities and Exchange Commission such indemnification is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act of 1933 and is therefore unenforceable.

Director Compensation

The Company adopted a compensation package for the non-management members of its Board, pursuant to which each such Board member would receive for his services $12,000 per annum, $750 per duly called Board meeting and $250 per unanimous written consent. Furthermore, each member of the Audit Committee of the Board receives an additional $10,000 per annum, and other committee members receive an additional $5,000 per annum. Board members are also entitled to receive equity awards. Upon joining the Board, a member would receive an initial grant of $40,000 of stock options (calculated as the product of the exercise price on the date of grant multiplied by the number of shares underlying the stock option award required to equal $40,000), with an additional grant of stock options each year thereafter, to purchase such number of shares of the Company’s common stock equal to $20,000, subject to the member of the Board having served on the Board for at least twelve continuous months, and having attended at least 80% of the Board meetings over the prior year.

The following table summarizes cash-based and equity compensation information for our outside directors, including annual Board and committee retainer fees and meeting attendance fees, for the year ended December 31, 2018:

Messrs. Gadot and Himelfarb received compensation for their services to the Company as set forth under the summary compensation table above.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.

The following table shows the number of shares of our common stock beneficially owned, as of March 28, 2019, by (i) each of our directors, (ii) each of our named executive officers, (iii) all of our current directors and executive officers as a group, and (iv) all those known by us to be to a beneficial owner of more than 5% of the company’s common stock. In general, “beneficial ownership” refers to shares that an individual or entity has the power to vote or dispose of, and any rights to acquire common stock that are currently exercisable or will become exercisable within 60 days of March 28, 2019. We calculated percentage ownership in accordance with the rules of the SEC. The percentage of common stock beneficially owned is based on 4,307,580 shares outstanding as of March 28, 2019. In addition, shares issuable pursuant to options or other convertible securities that may be acquired within 60 days of March 28, 2019 are deemed to be issued and outstanding and have been treated as outstanding in calculating and determining the beneficial ownership and percentage ownership of those persons possessing those securities, but not for any other persons.

This table is based on information supplied by each prospective director, officer and principal stockholder of the Company. Except as indicated in footnotes to this table, the Company believes that the stockholders named in this table have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares of Common Stock shown to be beneficially owned by them, based on information provided by such stockholders. Unless otherwise indicated, the address for each director, executive officer and 5% or greater stockholders of the Company listed is: c/o Microbot Medical Inc., 25 Recreation Park Drive, Unit 108, Hingham, MA 02043.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.

Related parties can include any of our directors or executive officers, certain of our stockholders and their immediate family members. Each year, we prepare and require our directors and executive officers to complete Director and Officer Questionnaires identifying any transactions with us in which the officer or director or their family members have an interest. This helps us identify potential conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest occurs when an individual’s private interest interferes, or appears to interfere, in any way with the interests of the company as a whole. Our code of ethics requires all directors, officers and employees who may have a potential or apparent conflict of interest to immediately notify our general counsel, who serves as our compliance officer. In addition, the Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for considering and reporting to the Board any questions of possible conflicts of interest of Board members. Our code of ethics further requires pre-clearance before any employee, officer or director engages in any personal or business activity that may raise concerns about conflict, potential conflict or apparent conflict of interest. Copies of our code of ethics and the Corporate Governance Committee charter are posted on the corporate governance section of our website at www.microbotmedical.com.

Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Microbot Medical Ltd., entered into a license agreement with Technion Research and Development Foundation Ltd., or TRDF, in 2012 pursuant to which it obtained an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license to certain patents and inventions relating to the SCS and TipCAT technology platforms. TRDF is a founder of Microbot. See “Description of Business – Intellectual Property” for a description of this agreement.

Other than the above transaction, there have been no related party transactions or any other transactions o relationships required to be disclosed pursuant to Item 404 of Regulation S-K.

Director Independence

NASDAQ’s listing standards and the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines require that the Company’s Board of Directors consist of a majority of independent directors, as determined under the applicable NASDAQ listing rules.

The independent members of our Board are Messrs. Waizer, Bornstein, Burell, Madden and Laxminarain.

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

Audit and Tax Fees

The Board, upon the recommendation of the Audit Committee, has selected the independent accounting firm of Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co., a Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, to audit the accounts of the Company for the year ending December 31, 2018.

The Audit Committee considered the tax compliance services provided by Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co., concluded that provision of such services is compatible with maintaining the independence of the independent accountants, and approved the provision by Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co. of tax compliance services with respect to the year ending December 31, 2018.

The Audit Committee received the following information concerning the fees of the independent accountants for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, has considered whether the provision of these services is compatible with independence of the independent accountants, and concluded that it is:

Audit and tax fees include administrative overhead charges and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses.

Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures

The Audit Committee has adopted policies and procedures for pre-approving all services (audit and non-audit) performed by our independent auditors. In accordance with such policies and procedures, the Audit Committee is required to pre-approve all audit and non-audit services to be performed by the independent auditors in order to assure that the provision of such services is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the SEC and does not impair the auditors’ independence. Under the policy, pre-approval is generally provided up to one year and any pre-approval is detailed as to the particular service or category of services and is subject to a specific budget. In addition, the Audit Committee may pre-approve additional services on a case-by-case basis. During 2015 and through November 28, 2016, Microbot Israel did not have a standing audit committee.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

(a) The following documents are filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K:

(1) Financial Statements:

The financial statements are filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K commencing on page F-1 and are hereby incorporated by reference

(2) Financial Statement Schedules:

The financial statement schedules are omitted as they are either not applicable or the information required is presented in the financial statements and notes thereto.

(3) Exhibits: