Very pleased to have management team from Pulse Biosciences, Paul LaViolette, President, CEO, and Chairman here today to talk about the business. I make this offer in every session. This is interactive. Happy to take questions from people in the audience. If you do have a question, just wave at me and we'll get you a mic so it's available to those participating via webcast. Maybe we just start higher level. You've been at Pulse a year and a half or so. Give us a little bit of background, like what attracted you to the role? What did you see in the company? How did this compare to the bevy of other opportunities that you've seen across the space? Yeah. Well, thank you, David. It's great to be here. I think it compares really favorably, to use your phrase, to the bevy of opportunities. If I think about what attracted me, it's not surprising, right, with what's going on in the field of PFA in the last couple of years that PFA by definition draws interest. There are a lot of PFA companies. PFA is actually a relatively standard technology today. What drew me to this was the uniqueness of the form of energy. We can talk about it in more detail, but it is a nanosecond, it's a highly differentiated form of PFA. PFA has the potential to treat so many maladies because of its unique non-thermal ablation form. I saw in this company a fantastic team, great backers, tremendous innovation, 250 patents, the potential to own a new form of therapeutic energy that not only could be widely applied to multiple diseases, but in particular, could be highly concentrated on some of the most important markets in med tech, most notably atrial fibrillation. This was a unique lineup that aligned a technology that could be alone, not only best and first in class, but alone in class in one of the most important med tech markets. I think there's a lot of attention that gets drawn to the company on the AF opportunity. Yeah it also sounds like you're describing this as a platform technology. Maybe help us think about just the identity of the company and ultimately longer term, what you're trying to build. Yeah, it's a great point, platform companies are hard sometimes to understand, to comprehend. This is a platform technology. It started off a handful of years ago with its first and has had subsequent, I think, half a dozen FDA clearances and can be widely used. I'm really attracted to that. Frankly, in my 45-year history in med tech, I've worked in cardiovascular, I've worked in a lot of general surgery, and endosurgery applications. There are benign and malignant applications here. It's a portfolio approach in how we can define diseases, we also really wanted to be focused on what was most important. Over the last couple of years, we have advanced a number of programs. We have two others in either the market or in the clinic, we focused in the last year based on, I would say, dispositive data on AFib. And so we've really concentrated our resources now, and we'll spend more time, I'm sure, on the EP opportunity while continuing to advance other applications. I do like to say, especially when I'm speaking to non-electrophysiologists, the data, as an example, that we're generating in the thyroid application is as impressive in that market as EP. The combination of EP differentiated clinical outcomes, market size, market growth, and early adoption of PFA, that combination is too compelling to not make it our principal focus. I obviously want to spend the majority of our time on EP here, maybe just one more strategy question because the platform company, it resonates in that you can obviously have multiple growth vectors associated with it, each of those different platforms does require different R&D, different go-to-market, specialized sales force. How do you think about just longer-term resource allocation as you build out a multi-therapeutic platform company? We address the resource allocation by making the decision to focus on AFib, but not to leave the others entirely behind. We start with a single energy, right, which gives us a lot of concentration of resources. We have a single console that, but for minor modifications in software, can really be used across the board. It becomes an application-specific strategy. Do you want to generate a clinical study and an application in one area or another? We also have defined ourselves as having a partnership strategy. We have capability of going in select markets that are, let's say, more addressable with direct resources. In any of the larger markets, and EP is a great example, very large, very competitive, we'll approach that market with a partnering strategy, which allows us from a capital and resource management perspective, as well as investors from the perspective of, how much capital would this company consume? We're not planning to build standalone businesses in every market, we'll use capital-efficient ways to bring this technology as rapidly as possible to patients where we can approach a market that will have the greatest business and clinical impact. It's a good segue to jump into the EP opportunity. Maybe we could start just with the technology specifically. You brought it up in your intro around the Nano-Pulse energy source. We talk about PFA or irreversible electroporation. However you want to define it. It is the next in a wave of energy sources that have been applied to EP. Yeah. maybe help us understand the Nano-Pulse Technology and how it fits in the landscape of just that broader EP evolution. Yeah RF to cryo to non-thermal. PFA, of course, is the manifestation, pulsed field ablation, of delivering pulsed electric fields. We're all delivering pulsed electric fields for the purpose of treating tissue, not by destroying it with excess heat or excess temperature, hot or cold, but by obviously introducing IRE, electroporation, causing cells to break down with membrane permeability. We do that very differently than all other PFA energies, and I think it's really important to understand that we're joining a group of technologies that has the potential to deliver non-thermal tissue therapy, but really with a different combination. People talk about algorithms or we're going to change this or change that. We're changing really the form of energy and the mechanism of action that we introduce. Nanosecond PFA shortens the pulse duration from millionths of a second to billionths. They're both short, but bear in mind that's a thousandfold difference, right on the time continuum. Then in order to make up for that extreme brevity of energy delivery, we dose with a much higher amplitude of energy measured in amplitude of volts. That combination creates a different and much more efficient way of treating cells. It also creates a different set of technology requirements around which we have innovated, which creates a richness of patent and innovation protection that we think allows us to be considered really the only likely competitor or deliverer of a Nanosecond PFA. I think this is a super important conversation because as you look at the evolution of treating AFib by endovascular solutions, we had an RF and we had contact force RF, it was all about going deep, getting deep durable lesions. Then we had cryo, which kind of opened up the paroxysmal market and Yeah to the younger patient population. Yeah. Even with many of PFA, which is basically taking a bazooka to the left atrium and delivering a lot of energy in a way that's non-thermal, so it's safe and stunning the tissue. All of this has led us to what's been deemed acceptable efficacy rates have been still in the 70s Yeah for paroxysmal patients and still in the 50s and 60s for persistent patients. Yeah. Maybe help us think about some of the disease treatment differences between Nano-Pulse and some of the other technologies. Yeah How you can address this still seeming shortcoming. Yeah From an efficacy standpoint. I think it's a great question, and it really highlights the state of the market, right? Which is it is safer. We've expanded the patient population that we can treat, and of course, that's driving double-digit, even 20% organic growth in procedures. That's fantastic. This is the number one arrhythmia. There's a lot of patients to be treated. We have so many patients who are struggling with throughput. Even as procedures have gone from two and a half hours to two to one to barely maybe just shy of one hour, we can't treat patients fast enough. Can we find an energy that can treat patients with less time, more energy efficiency, not compromising safety at all, maybe improving upon it, and improving efficacy? Because to your point, that continuum of energy evolution from RF to cryo to first generation PFA, all of those results are basically locked in that upper 70%. If you look at the feasibility data that we've published, 96% efficacy as it relates to AFib freedom at 12 months, 90% at 12 months freedom from flutter, fibrillation, or tachycardia. How does that 90% compare? Sphere 9 is doing really well in the market. Sphere 9 registered around 78%. Kardium, a big new story, 78%. FARAPULSE, the biggest story in the last four years, 74%. How do you go from 74%-90%? Which if you look at it from 100% down, it's like we're reducing failure by two-thirds. That's never been done by a single form of energy iteration in the history of electrophysiology. I think that puts in perspective what we think we have here. As you think about-- Maybe jump into the clinical data a little bit further. You have the initial data. Maybe talk us through the U.S. IDE strategy and how to think about just timing and key regulatory- Yeah milestones. Let me correct the-- We have initial data, and I think that's fair. We also have a tremendous volume of initial data. Okay. If you think about most companies do a feasibility study, they might treat 20 or 25 patients, and then they think, "Okay, now we know generally what we have." We have treated over 175 patients, and we have about half of those patients followed out a year now. We have as much feasibility data as companies will generally produce in their pivotal study. We feel really good about that. We go to the pivotal study and say, "What are we trying to prove there?" In many ways, we're really just trying to replicate the compelling nature of the feasibility data that we've already generated. It's a relatively conventional pivotal study. Single-arm paroxysmal focus as the first sort of foray to enter that market. Relatively modest scale, around 150 patients followed roughly a year and showing against an objective performance criterion ablation success. Yep. That's what we're doing. We received approval at the very end of 2025, started enrolling in April, and are off to a very good start. As we've mentioned publicly, we did our first cases the first week of April, importantly, that first anecdotal moment, that first lab, first time a team is touching this catheter forever, and on their very first day performed seven cases. That's unprecedented. Maybe if we fast-forward, if you think about it, I don't know, six months to enroll, a year of follow-up, get the filing together, a year to approval, that would put you at 2028. Yeah. Early 2028. Yeah. I look at it in three tranches. Okay of time and effort. Enrollment, follow-up, obviously review time. Enrollment, we started off by saying we'll finish enrollment by the end of 2026. We subsequently updated our enrollment schedule and said we're ahead of schedule. We're going to move that now to October on a beat and raise kind of mindset, of course, we're working as a team to try to beat and raise again. We haven't determined any changes subsequent to early October, but we're working hard to try to do that. That's enrollment. You have follow-up. We're using a Bayesian analysis with a blended endpoint following some patients 12 months, with the remaining patients six. In our statistical plan, we do not need to follow the last patient in for 12 months. Okay. We'll provide more detail on that over time. Of course, FDA review time is a function of, they have a statutory 180 days to review that. Give them clean data, give them outstanding safety, review times can be compressed. I think if we optimize our execution of those three tranches of time, we'll get very close to the end of 2027. I think there's been some discussion. This came up at HRS conversation with the FDA around shortening the length of follow-up needed to get approval for an AF indication. I think there's been discussion about being six months maybe- Yeah not 12, perhaps that's what you're reflecting- Yes in your statistical plan. Yes. Any update you can provide on that? Well, only that we agree with that, number one. Number two, it's based upon a lot of data, a lot of studies that are deriving from the efficacy. If PFA addresses cells and those cells are turned off, then what are you going to see from month four to month seven to month nine? At some point, there is diminishing value in following longer term, and you can use the power of some patients followed a year to inform how other patients followed for a shorter period of time will do over a year. That's what the statistical plan calls for, and that's how you can blend and optimize aggregate follow-up time with a combination of six and 12. Between now and that launch time, maybe talk to us about, obviously there are things happening on the clinical and regulatory side, but talk to us about the other piece of it. What are the things you're doing over the next kind of 18 months to get launch-ready? Is it upstream marketing, supply chain, starting to think about who are going to be your key sites? Maybe help us think about all the kind of priming the pump activities? Right that you're going to be doing ahead of that approval. Well, the first thing you think about is what is our go-to-market strategy, and we've defined that as a partner strategy in EP. Some of the elements that you describe, we would not be doing entirely on our own. Preparing for launch, you mentioned supply chain, and yes, that's not something that you can turn on overnight. I will say our catheter and our team has done a magnificent job engineering from not only a design perspective, but a design for manufacturability perspective. We feel very good about our margin profile, and we feel very good about the scalability of this technology. We've already commenced manufacturing, and we're sourcing today for our clinical work devices from two contract manufacturers, we don't have to build a plant ourselves. This is the kind of thing the medical device industry is extremely well-suited to do for us. We do make the capital equipment ourselves. We will have no problem scaling to supply a significant launch in year one and year two. When you think about that as 2028, 2029, that's a fair amount of time to scale up. When I think about segmentation, I don't want to dismiss the question, but this is a catheter built for every set of hands and for every left atrium. By that I mean extremely low learning curve, follow the workflow of other catheters, much easier device to manipulate in the left atrium. We put this in the hands of physicians and time after time after time on their first case. I will say anecdotally, we opened a site yesterday in the U.S., a very experienced, very prominent KOL using our catheter for the first time. He's probably tried every catheter on Earth, and he turns to our team and says, "This is amazing." That's the kind of feedback that we get, and that parlays into five to 10-minute ablation times. So how is that segmented? Well, it's for all paroxysmal patients. That's the number one patient indication flowing through the EP lab. High-volume labs want it because it dramatically improves their throughput. Medium-volume labs want it because it reduces the variability of operator performance. It's really suited for every procedure. Now, in the U.S., we're obviously focused on paroxysmal as our first indication. We'll advance a persistent study later this year. We treated a number of patients with both PVI and posterior wall ablation in our European study, and we have data on that. The data are outstanding. If you think about going to market, being able to treat pulmonary veins, being able to treat the posterior wall, that's 95% of the EP population. One of the things that really caught my attention when I was spending time in EP labs is how much stuff is used in an EP case. You have the mapping system, you have access catheters, you have diagnostic catheters, CS catheters. This is an incredible amount of ancillary products that surround the procedure. Could you maybe just talk about how you're thinking about compatibility and integration with some of the- Yeah The electromechanical products on the mapping side, also just some of the mechanical products on the ancillary side? It's a great setup. The lab is complicated, and the procedure has a lot of stuff. The market has voted, and it basically has said, "Only one thing really matters to us, the right ablation tool." With that, everything else can follow. If I go into a complex lab now, they've got multiple mapping systems. They can use the ancillary tools. They're really thinking about how does this ablation catheter change my procedure setup? I think we're redefining how that will happen. Mapping integration, we can be mapped. If you read our IDE, it says you can be mapped with any commercially available mapping system. Which means, really, the barrier to entry is not around mapping. It's around are you interested in a device that will likely deliver more efficient energy, higher ablation results, and much improved workflow? When I think about data, we have great data, we talked about that. The thing that's most compelling to our physicians, though, is the ease with which they can put this catheter nto the left atrium, move from one vein to another, deliver only one ablation at the ostial, one at the antral, eight lesions, each lasting only five seconds, taking only 5- 10 seconds to move from one to the other. We've had our best ablation time to date be three minutes of ablation time. Our average, again, with very low operator to operator hands-on experience in terms of how many cases they've done, 5- 8 minutes. When you think about what's going to drive the system change, what's going to drive selection, it's not about what transseptal device you use. You're talking here about single catheter workflow, where you can map and ablate with one device that can do in and outside the vein ablations. Each of those ablations taking five seconds, you can do a variety of ablation protocols, if you will, all within a limited number of minutes, do a post-ablation map with this device, and get out. That opens up a realm of throughput efficiency, of easing the pressure in the AFib market, of moving to alternative sites of care that no other device holds the potential to deliver. It would seem like you kind of made a reference to it there, but we're seeing this proliferation or potential proliferation of AFib procedures in the ASC. This would seem like an optimal technology to be used in that setting. Maybe talk to us how you think that- Yeah both unlocks kind of market growth, but also how it helps sort of validate your product market fit. I think this is an unlock. I think it does validate the fit. I think if you think about the ASC trend, however, it's really just beginning subsequent to legislative changes that went into effect at the beginning of 2026. This is a trend that is only commencing. If you were to look today and say, "Well, what percentage of all AFib ablations are done at ASCs?" It's a low single-digit percent. It's much more about how it will play a role in the next couple of years, both for efficiency but also just to provide capacity in the marketplace. I'll pivot off of your comment earlier about the complexity of a cath lab. How can we deconstruct that complexity and put it into a lower intensity site of care that allows for incremental procedure flow in AFib therapy? That's really the goal. You have to have a couple of things that enable that. Number one, you have to have an ablation procedure that's driven mostly by anatomical decision-making. Go in the veins, ablate those. We know where they are. Ablate the posterior wall if that's your next step. They have to be mapped, they're not mapping-intense, which allows you to reduce your mapping intensity at the ASC. You want to treat a patient with a low anesthesia burden because you don't want to have GA on site. You can't use GA if you have to paralyze the patient. You have to paralyze the patient if you have low or slow, I should say, pulse durations because that stimulates a lot of involuntary muscular movement. You have to have a technology that can be used with sedation protocol that is mapping light. That can allow for super high efficiency and patient throughput. I think I just described our device. It's very helpful, I totally agree with you on the selection criteria leading with the ablation catheter. I had this experience on the other side that no one buys a car for the handle on the glove compartment. Right. You buy a car for a lot of other reasons, and you sort of assume the other stuff. Right works. I think EP is very similar, that you engage with a company because of the ablation catheter and the efficacy. I think that's similar, but. efficiency. That's only recent. Only, yeah. I think we should bear in mind that that trend inverted with the arrival of FARAPULSE as the first-generation PFA device. Prior to that, it was mapping lead and followed by ablation. As you think about the commercial strategy, I think one of the challenges, even with the ablation catheter being your core technology, this is still becoming a contract-heavy sale. I can imagine the larger companies that have more sort of broad portfolios are trying to leverage that as the market becomes more competitive. Maybe just give us a window into what the partnership strategy looks like, how you envision that coming to life, and what you're looking for in a partner. Well, our partnership strategy is driven by our performance, our execution. We're very focused on ourselves. Come up with that best product market fit, drive execution effectiveness, put up data that no one's ever produced. We've done that in Europe, and now as we go from center to center to center in the U.S., and every single physician that touches our catheter is one of the KOLs in the market, and every one of them has the exact same experience and response. Okay, you want a partnership strategy? That's it. The partner prospects can then not deny. Let's look at what drives market cap. How about growth in EP? What drives growth in EP? Having every physician desperate to use your catheter and having that catheter solve the difficult problems of this marketplace today, including throughput, including enabling more and more. Not all electrophysiologists perform AF, as an example. How do we democratize this? We are focused on delivering that value proposition. You step back and say, what are partners experiencing today? Partners are experiencing the volatility of their own short-lived product life cycle. They launch a product, they get leaped over by another minor iteration, they lose market share, and unfortunately, a five-point market share change in AFib translates to a $25 billion loss in market cap, right? If you think about what would be the number one most desirable drop-in for a partner, it would be a next-generation technology that was deeply patent-protected, for which competitors would not be likely to arrive on the scene for a very long time. Rich innovation at its base, so that even if someone aspired to copy it would take them 10 years to get there, and that added extraordinary ease of use to the lab and brought along the prospect for superior outcomes. Which, by the way, unlocks something else, which is a diminution in the use of drugs as first-line therapy and an acceleration of the use of highly safe and highly workflow-efficient ablation as frontline therapy for AFib. That to me is what is the underpinning of the partnership strategy. Partnership can have a pretty wide spectrum, too. You can have everything from an exclusive distribution relationship to a revenue-sharing model to a shared sales force, all the way to an acquisition. Just help us think about how you're prioritizing your time and kind of establishing the right partnership such that when you do get FDA approval, you're Yeah ready to bring this product to market. We're really focused on doing our job. Not surprisingly, in the process of doing our job and doing it well, partner interest is organic after that. We don't have to work on partnership in the sense of a conventional company hires a BD vice president and says, "Go establish partnership interest." It's not that way. It's in large part because of the intensity of focus on AFib. Partnership dynamics are natural. Partnership discussions are taking place. I think it's the drive from where are we now. I like to remind folks, we only disclosed our efficacy data for the first time in February. Here we are, pace our. In some ways burst on the scenes. That entire partnership population is really coming to understand us quite well and has been doing that now only over the last couple of months. You work that forward and say, okay, additional de-risking, additional data, coming to fully grasp the disruptive power of NSPFA. You go forward to the timeline we talked about. What are you going to do? You're going to launch around the end of 2027, early 2028. Work backward from that. How much time do we have to prepare? Supply chain, integration, all those things. Say, okay, well, somewhere between you advancing your story and us contemplating how this might work with us in a partnership, we begin to converge upon a timeline that is between now and the next number of quarters for something like that to materialize. Appreciating that partnership announcements, timing them is unpredictable. What are the other kind of milestones that you'll be able to update investors on over the next, call it 6-12 months, are you going to provide quarterly enrollment updates? Are we going to see other? We won't provide quarterly enrollment updates because we won't be going quarter to quarter and still enrolling. Think about the flow of information. Number one, we have this large open label patient population that we've treated in Europe that will continue to produce data for us essentially on a real time basis. That's a wonderful asset, again, of size equal to or greater than the IDE. While you wait for a binary opening of the envelope in the IDE, the feasibility study marches on and becomes richer and richer in what it teaches us. The more and more data you have followed longer and longer time, it becomes so consistent and concordant, it makes it almost inconceivable that then a U.S. population following a similar patient group would not reflect the same outcome, right? That's job number one. Job number two, IDE enrollment. We announced last month that we would shorten the timeline. We'll continue to drive that and we'll provide routine updates on that. From that point, once you get to a certain percentage enrolled, then you lock the last patient in for the 12-month follow-up. That kind of puts a pin in the calendar. We'll certainly announce that. You go only weeks after that before significant enrollment milestone completion. We've already commenced modular submission. This thing is moving and it's moving fast, and I think our team is doing a great job executing. Do you think we can see the U.S. IDE study readout at HRS next year? Would that be the right timeline? We haven't announced anything like that. I'd have to think that through, but that sounds tight. Tight. That sounds tight just based on the composite follow-up timelines for the first half and second half of our enrollment. Excellent. I know we're just about at time here, but maybe I'll turn it back to you to make any closing remarks. You've obviously it's been a really dynamic first half of the year. You had AF Symposium, you had HRS. You've been, I think, out meeting with investors. Give people a feel for how you want them to walk out of this conference and presentation and as they go reflect on the story from here. First of all, I'm excited about this story. I hope some of that excitement has come through. I've been in med tech for 45 years. I've been associated with some really big devices and markets. I've never been associated with anything as compelling as NSPFA. Number one. Number two, the experience in the cath lab is wholly different with our technology. Yes, that's going to convert into definitively measured clinical outcomes. The top physicians, when they're going into a procedure, they're not thinking about what was the readout for this study or that study. They're thinking, "Okay, I know this catheter works, and I know it works incredibly well in my hands." What actually the way physicians articulate it to us is, "Why would I use anything else?" Then the last thing I would say, just from a mechanical perspective as a company financing, we opened up a financing strategy. We've talked about this. We have an ATM that's open and active now. We have a shelf registration, and then we have the prospect of capital raise from a strategic partnership. We're well-financed to execute our plan today. We're adding capital over time, I will tell you, this is an exciting story in the most hot and tightly followed market, I think we're going to be extremely disruptive, not only to the treatment of AFib, but to a number of diseases thereafter. Well, I think that's a great place to wrap up here. Paul, I want to thank you. It's always a privilege to sit down with you. You've had an incredible impact on the medical device industry and really shaped a lot of the companies that we know and follow today, and looking forward to seeing. Thank you, David. The direction of Pulse play out. Thank you very much. Thank you.