Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining us again at the 23rd Annual Needham Healthcare Conference. I'm Mike Matson, and I lead the MedTech Equity Research Team at Needham & Company. I'm pleased to introduce Surmodics. Speaking today, we have CEO Gary Maharaj and CFO Tim Arens. Instead of a standard presentation, we are going to do a Q&A session. If you have any questions you'd like to ask, you can submit them electronically through the Needham Conference website, or feel free to email them to me at mmatson@needhamco.com, and I'll do my best to fit them in. So with that, we're going to go straight into the questions. And I have to start with one of your bigger products, SurVeil. So I guess this product was approved last year. I believe it's now been launched by Abbott. Maybe just start out by talking about how SurVeil compares to some of the other DCBs that are out there and how Abbott's sort of positioning the product in the market. Clearly. First of all, thanks, Mike. Thanks for the invitation. We presented the 3-year data last November, Dr. Peter Schneider at VEITH. The first thing is, we have the only Level 1 randomized controlled trial with durable data now out to 3 years of SurVeil versus a high-dose device, namely the Medtronic IN.PACT Admiral. And what we're seeing is a continued durability and, I would say, in layperson's terms, equivalence to the safety and efficacy of the IN.PACT Admiral in a worldwide pivotal randomized controlled trial. So what that means and by the way, the point estimates even are less than a 0.4% apart in terms of freedom from TLR. So one is like 71.4, one is on 71.8. So we're really seeing the devices being clinically equivalent. The big issue is, it's equivalent with a much lower dose of paclitaxel. There were issues with the FDA had about paclitaxel that have now all blown over, and I believe everyone in the scientific and clinical community is applauding that. But nonetheless, paclitaxel is a cytotoxic drug. So we are able to use 75% less of a known cytotoxic drug to be able to achieve the same clinical efficacy and safety endpoints. And so in pharmacotherapy, my wife's a pharmacist, so I'm not saying this categorically, right? But if you have something that has a lower dose formulation of a cytotoxic drug, ethically, you really should be treating the patient with that formulation because even though there are no known safety issues with paclitaxel, less is better if you're getting the same results. And so as we see it, SurVeil gives a better therapeutic window, using scientific speak, of being able to treat a patient with less drug circulating in your body, getting the same clinical results. So that's a pretty big thing. No other company has that. And other companies might have a head-to-head trial, but it's very different when you have a worldwide trial, not a single-country trial, right? Worldwide trial with the FDA looking at your data every 100 days or following up that. And so I think we and I imagine Abbott also believe that. Significant clinical evidence for the product. So that's the first thing. I think the second thing is, you just have to hold the SurVeil device up to the naked eye, right? And look at it versus every other drug-coated balloon in the market. And you can tell I don't know if this has a clinical bearing, but you can tell the quality of the device. There's no blotches. There's no pieces missing. There's no drug continuity issues or uniformity issues. And I'm proud of our team. We've worked really hard. And I think Abbott's tagline, no hold me to this, is "Seeing is believing," right? So you look at the device, and you can actually tell there's a difference in the quality of drug coverage. Now, whether that's relevant clinically, we have a clinical demonstrating we have good efficacy. But clearly, there's care that goes into the process engineering of these devices. And drug-coated balloons, I will tell you, the inside secret in the industry is very difficult to make. And so we have a robust process as well. I think those are pretty significant things that our partner, Abbott, really likes about a product. Okay. Got it. And then you talked about some of the data, but I know that there were some 36-month data on SurVeil from the TRANSCEND Pivotal Study presented in November. Can you just give a quick overview of that and what it showed? Yeah. I'm looking at the chart right now. So really, no difference in safety. Major adverse events, limb amputation, no difference between us and IN.PACT Admiral. And they're all by the way, they're all very low thresholds here. So both devices clearly look exceedingly safe for three years. What's interesting is the freedom from CDTLR, right? And that's what's important to you, you think what's important to a patient is, do I have to go back into the hospital and get a reintervention? That's really important. And so you look at the freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 36 months. Both devices performed really well. I mean, the IN.PACT Admiral was 81.6% freedom, and SurVeil's was 81.2%. And statistically, that's the same number. I mean, but people always like to look at point estimates, but it's a statistical aggregate. 80+% at 3 years, I think it's terrific from the point of view of both devices' performance, but one, again, using substantially less drug. Yeah. Okay. Got it. And then I know you haven't given all the details about the financial arrangement between you and Abbott, but I was wondering, just for the benefit of the folks that are watching, if you could kind of walk through how it's structured in terms of how you get paid without getting into the numbers, I guess, because I don't think you're willing or able to do that. Timothy, over to Leo. Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you, Mike, for the question. And clearly, given Abbott's recent launch of SurVeil, it's a question that we get asked a lot more of these days. So thank you for bringing it up. I think we've characterized that relationship with Abbott and the agreement that we have with Abbott has paid us a substantial amount in terms of milestone payments. Pre-commercial, $88 million-$89 million was total milestone payments that we have earned or received. And we have no further milestone payments, which will be received. So no commercial milestone payments, and all the pre-commercial milestone payments have already been paid. So we are at the most exciting point of the economics here with Abbott, which is getting paid to manufacture product that Abbott sells. So there is a transfer price component. We make product, ship it to Abbott, invoice them, and they pay us that price per unit. It's the same for every single unit. And so to think about the economics, we have these two revenue streams: that transfer payment for the product that we manufacture. But excitingly, there is another payment, and this is a profit-sharing payment. And the way the mechanics work on that is Abbott's revenue less what they pass for the transfer price results in basically what you would consider product gross margin. Abbott can and will reduce that gross margin by a percentage of sales and marketing expense tied to revenue. And what would remain would be the profit pool. And that profit pool is shared between Abbott and Surmodics. We've characterized it in the past not quite 50/50. But net-net, we expect that both Abbott and Surmodics would be in a position where our margins on these products would allow us both to be kind of near or in the range of what you typically see within med device, which is somewhere between 60%-80%. And I speak on our behalf. I can't speak for Abbott, but certainly, that would be a range that we would be looking to achieve at scale. Just from an accounting standpoint, I mean, the transfer price, I would assume, is considered revenue. Is the profit-sharing portion also revenue to Surmodics? That's right, Mike. And we've described this on our recent earnings call. So we'll recognize revenue at the time of the shipment of the product to Abbott. So we'll recognize not only the transfer price component, but we will estimate a profit-sharing component. And so that will show up on the balance sheet as a contract asset. And it's not unlike what we have with our royalty revenue, where we have to make estimations around the royalty revenue. And once we actually get the payments from Abbott, we will be doing some true-ups over time. But as you can imagine, given this is fairly new, we are looking to be appropriately conservative in terms of our estimates. Okay. Got it. And then I think last quarter, which was your fiscal first quarter, was the first sort of stocking order from Abbott. And I know you didn't disclose how much that was, but I went back and was looking at the model. It looks like the medical device product sales were up by about $3 million-$4 million sequentially. I mean, is that a right way to sort of think about that stocking order without getting into specific numbers? Sure. Yeah. Thank you for that. And thanks for doing the homework here on the sequential growth. I think you're right. It was around $3.5 million in Q1 versus Q4. Clearly, there's other elements to the product revenue in the med device business. And what I will tell you is that SurVeil had a meaningful impact in terms of that sequential growth. I won't provide a whole lot of specifics. But Mike, as you know, we've guided for fiscal 2024 to generate at least $14 million of revenue associated with our catalysts, which SurVeil is a big one, but also includes Pounce and Sublime. Okay. So $14 million combined for all those products. That is correct. At least. Yep. I know that you're one degree removed from Abbott. They're out there with their sales force in the hospitals with SurVeil. But what about the VAC committees and the hurdles to getting these products into the hospitals? Is that something that they're able to navigate successfully? And is it likely to also cause sort of a lag between them launching the product but then taking a couple of months or quarter or two to get on the list at the hospital to allow the doctors to actually use the product? I haven't caught up with Abbott. We typically will have a quarterly review, and we haven't had that at this point yet. So I don't know the specific answers to that. I know they know. But knowing the industry, knowing the plan generically in this is you really want to make sure first, Salesforce is trained, and we know that's happened. But secondarily, you need to start overlaying your strategic accounts such as group contracts, IDNs, and VAC committees at the hospital level. Abbott has an incredibly strong group contracting commercial front there. The thing with group contracts, and I'm speaking for myself now having worked in that industry for some time, they come up for approval or reassurance at certain critical times. And you want to make sure you get in front of them in time to be able to get added to that. That gives you the, as they call it, the hunting license for your sales team. You still have to get through VACs, typically. My experience with this is, and this is not speaking on behalf of Abbott, but you get what I call the friends and family accounts, physicians who really want to start using it, and you get that. To substantially drive the market, you've got to win the overall war of group contracts, IDNs, and VAC committees. Those don't happen, as you know, overnight. That's my answer, but I can't answer for them because it was somewhat insulated from it. I suspect it's similar to that, but I don't know how they're performing according to their own internal expectations. Yeah. Okay. Understand. And then just the order sequencing. So you said you have a quarterly review at them. So once it's kind of up and running and reaches some kind of steady, I don't want to say steady state. Hopefully, it keeps growing. But do you expect kind of quarterly orders from Abbott, or? Yeah. So Mike, actually, Gary's referring to a meeting. But in terms of kind of the monthly cadence of activities, every month, we receive an updated forecast from Abbott, and we receive a PO. So ever since we actually started to manufacture the units that are part of the stocking order that went out in our Q1, we've been manufacturing products. These are reorders. We have some line of sight and visibility, and we've been shipping product to them on a monthly basis. So nothing's changed there. Everything's according to our expectations. But Gary was talking a bit more about some of the other types of meetings that we have, some development committee meetings, etc., so a little bit removed from this. All right. But you should be, I mean, assuming the product's selling, I mean, there should be pretty consistent reorders coming in then. It's not going to be like one quarter every year, they're going to order everything they need for the entire year. No. It won't be that way. It won't be on a quarterly basis. I think Gary probably provided a little perspective as well. We don't quite fully appreciate Abbott's efforts and the timing of their key accounts in terms of GPO agreements, IDN contracts, as well as the VAC committee stuff. But I would imagine that that would be more robust as we go through the first several quarters. Essentially, here, we're on month 2. We've just completed month 2. So we're very early into this. Yep. Okay. All right. And then putting SurVeil aside for the moment, you have some other DCBs. So Sundance, the below-the-knee DCB, I think there was some 24-month data presented back in November from their SWING first-in-human trial. So can you maybe give us an update there and? Sure. Professor Ramon Varcoe, who I think everybody knows if they didn't know him before, presented the LIFE-BTK study on that's an Abbott product. And shortly thereafter, he presented there one-year sirolimus resorbable stent data. Shortly after that, he presented our two-year Sundance sirolimus drug-coated DCB data. And I may be slightly biased, but I think it was spectacular results from drug-coated balloons. So if we look at the per-protocol analysis, I mean, freedom, I'm looking at the target lesion primary patency. 6 months was about 88%. At 12 months, it was 80%. I mean, the Kaplan-Meiers are coming down there. At 24 months, it was 71.4%. That's simply remarkable to have now, granted, we're talking about 33 lesions, first-in-human, not randomized, okay, so with that caveat. But I was pleasantly surprised not I shouldn't be as surprised, but getting the durability for sirolimus DCB in the infrapopliteal tail of BTK space and getting an effect of over 70% primary patency after two years, I think, is terrific. I mean, Professor Varcoe concluded his presentation I think he's presented it twice now, Tim, by saying he strongly encourages and advises that this product be taken further. So stay tuned. I don't know when we'll have the 36-month data wrapped here. I suspect if we do, we'll have it presented sometime this year. I think it'll be too early for LINQ, which is now in the summer, but it may be in time for some of the later conferences. What it does suggest, though, is our excipient platform works with multiple drugs, not just paclitaxel, but also sirolimus. Any issues we had with the U.S. FDA really came down to a very unique excipient we use, right? It's a new technology. But now, having seen SurVeil cross the goal line there, this technology is better understood by the agency and has significant data in early human studies. We, unfortunately, don't see a pathway where we could by ourselves advance that to the clinical IDE stage. A clinical like that is about $50 million. So we're actively engaging and seeking potential partners for that. Okay. And what would a deal look like there? I mean, would it be similar to SurVeil in any way, or would it be structured differently? I mean, and obviously, it's all subject to negotiation, but. It is. I mean, no, I don't think it has to be an Abbott-type deal. But I think the deal we're interested in is Surmodics can take all of the risk, financial execution, clinical trial risk, right? Below the knee trials are a bit tougher. I mean, I'm proud of our team as a small company running what I consider the best DCB trial that's been conducted in the above-the-knee. And so we would like to make sure from a financial basis, we're not putting it all out there and waiting for a huge milestone to recoup that. That was sort of the Abbott deal. Turned out well. In a case like this, we would like to have that funding be concurrent with the activities and to have that at a minimum shared with the partner. And that's the type of deal. It's an easier deal to get into, not a huge downstroke, but that ongoing commitment of the financing of the activities is what I believe we're looking for. Okay. And then I know you also had the Avess AV fistula DCB, but I think you've maybe, I don't know. I haven't heard you talk about that lately. Has it been shut down, or? We have it off the stove. We're still doing a follow-up. Professor Andrew Holden presented that. He was one of the PIs at Charing Cross, I think, in 2021 or 2022. I forget which one. I had hoped that there was compelling clinical economic data from this category of devices. Using the Medtronic devices, I've seen the health economic data. It's substantial in preventing these AV fistula issues, right? We're talking about $ billions of U.S. healthcare. So I had hoped by now that a leading player like a Medtronic or BD would have gotten reimbursement for this submarket. The submarket is incredibly price-sensitive in end-stage renal disease. And so until we have reimbursement that validates that this technology saves a lot of healthcare costs, I think we'll stay on the sideline, right? It's the same technology as SurVeil, just bigger balloon diameters. We'll stay on the sideline. If it does happen and we find a partner, a trial like that can actually be enrolled in about 14 months. We already have the PIs and stuff picked out, but it just makes no sense to go forward if the U.S. government economics are not there to recognize the value for U.S. patients. Yeah. Would that be more like a PMA supplement than on top of SurVeil or something? No. It's a different indication, different vessel. You touch both the vein and the artery. So it'll be a different review team, but also a study. But those patients are everywhere, right? I mean, so enrollment shouldn't be a huge, huge issue for a trial like that. But unfortunately, for now, we have it off the stove, not on the back burner. It's book-ended, so it's easy to pick up again if we see that with a partner. All right. Got it. Then moving on to Pounce and Sublime. Starting with Pounce, can you just remind us? I mean, I guess you have the arterial version and the venous version. Starting with arterial, can you just talk about the market opportunity there and the TAM? Right. There's layers of the market. The main market that's credible, attainable, and that's known and defined clinically is acute limb ischemia, right? So piece of clot you have AFib comes from your heart. If it doesn't go to your brain and kill you or give you a stroke, it goes south and usually gets stuck in the femoropopliteal vessels as a taper. That becomes very highly fibrinized. So when you think of clot as acute, subacute, and chronic, on the arterial side, I think of soft serve ice cream, Jell-O shots, and eraser heads, right, as that. And so typically, those are very emergency procedures because patients can lose the limb, different from critical limb-threatening ischemia, which is a progressive disease from peripheral artery disease, right? So that market alone, I've seen it bounded, we say, about $800 million. I've seen anywhere from 600 to higher than that number of acute limb ischemia cases in the U.S. One thing I will say, and this data is more and more coming out, in healthcare, it takes some time between knowledge and practice, right? What people have recognized is when you have coronary artery disease, the plaque there is quite different than peripheral artery disease. Coronary artery disease is atheroma, fatty plaque with some thrombosis. What they're recognizing now, even between above and below the knee, peripheral artery disease is mainly thrombosis with some plaque. Below the knee, it's more chronic thrombus. Above the knee is more acute. So as I think of Pounce LP, clearly, within our indication, we're looking at acute limb ischemia. But more and more, as we're doing the PROWL Registry, right, and I think hopefully, we can make the deadline to be on the podium later this year with the first 100 patients from that PROWL Registry to tell us how the product's actually being used because it's retrospective, okay? But the PAD has a lot of thrombus in it, not just acute limb ischemia. So that potentially and this is just a very early read as that becomes more known in medicine, can be a vital part of the claim expansion for Pounce. I will say Pounce, it's a challenging bold statement, but I'll face the heat for it. I've personally not seen it lose in a head-to-head with any other device on the market. Typically, because people don't know Surmodics, they don't know Pounce, they will use the other competitive devices, capital equipment and stuff, and then finally, they give up and say, "We'll try your Pounce." And literally, not figuratively, literally, 10 minutes later, the patient is out of the cath lab, which is sorry for. That is how Pounce has been progressing. And I know we'll talk about Pounce LP at some point, but it has been growing into high double digits, and we're very happy for it. Stay tuned for our second quarter earnings call, obviously. So okay. Just the arterial category, if I understand this right, the market leader would be Penumbra, essentially, right? Yes. Yes. Okay. Who are the other players that are in that? Boston has a device. I think Inari pulled the Arctic off, but they'll come back when they have recouped it. I don't know how JETi and stuff does. I haven't followed players beyond Penumbra very well, unfortunately. Yeah. No, that's fine. I think Penumbra is pretty dominant in that area. Okay. And then Pounce LP, so you mentioned that. So can you just talk about where that sort of fits within the whole lineup of products? Pounce LP, Mike, you know I'm a worrywart. I like to see 50-100 cases in a limited market evaluation, typically, right? This LME has gone beyond even my expectations. I'm getting a lot of pressure now, "Why are we continuing when people just want to order the product?" So we'll wait till our earnings call to talk about what we're doing there and recognize we had said that we were looking in the second half of the year to launch things like Pounce LP and Pounce Venous. But Pounce LP is in a category by itself, even compared to Pounce above the knee. And the reason is I have high respect for the Penumbra-type products and stuff. But you're trying to suck or remove something in the infrapopliteal space down to the ankle. These are 2.5-millimeter fragile vessels. Physics is working against you, right, in the architecture of those technologies. Pounce LP has this unique capability that I've seen in the LME. I think we have dozens of cases right now where it has actually removed clot way down into the ankle region. That's a pretty big statement. What's nice is the same mechanism of action of Pounce, except really designed to be less traumatic or to be appropriately less traumatic on very, very small fragile vessels. So I would say Pounce LP, when we do bring it commercially to market, and I hope it's just around the corner, will be a catalyst on top of the catalyst of Pounce because, as one physician told me, he said, "You want to know the truth?" I was like, "Tell me the truth." He said, "Pounce is better than anything else out there, but Pounce LP is in a league of its own because he doesn't have another tool." So quite excited about the growth trajectory when that comes online. And as I said, stay tuned. They're going to arm-wrestle me on how many cases we really need. But the data I've seen and the physician I've personally talked to, the physicians, are pushing me to say, "Enough already. We got to launch this thing pretty soon. It needs to get out there. Okay. Got it. And then what about Pounce Venous? So I think you had a limited market evaluation for that going as well. We do. We do. By the way, the publication of the first 19 patients is live online now by Stephen Black. It's in print process, but I can send you the link for that publication. And the first 19 patients demonstrated excellent data, removal of thrombus, improvement in Villalta scores, post-thrombotic syndrome, and the venous patient-assessed questionnaire as well. We are over now the 100 patients that I usually ask or if I add that first 19. So we have 80-something cases now. And as I said, stay tuned for our earnings call coming up in a couple of weeks. We said we would launch that in the second half of the year. We want to make sure that we have the supply chain secured, everybody trained, and so but remember, an LME, it was being paid for as well. So we are getting revenues from that. And so I expect those revenues to accelerate. So it's been a long time coming, and we're happy that that too would be around the corner. Okay. Got it. Are you planning to seek a clearance for pulmonary embolism once that's on the market? I know, for example, AngioDynamics just got theirs cleared for PE, but I think you'd have to run a trial or something. Right. So the Pounce Venous product is not that architecture is not what we'll be going into PE for. All right. So our PE concept, and we've actually frozen the design already, is a very different thing, much like CloudTrevo and FlowTriever, very different things. In a similar vein, the PE device would be separate. It would require a separate 510(k) submission. That's not something we have on tap, Tim, that we have said anything about this fiscal year. If Tim would let me, I would do it. But we want to be prudent in where we allocate capital. We have a lot of returns of our invested capital to get right now. So I want to make sure we focus on getting these launches done right before re-upping substantially in a new platform for PE. But we have one. We just have to finish it up. Okay. So Pounce Venous, the current product that's being evaluated, is really for DVT effectively then? Yeah. And so good point. So the claim that everybody started with, and we are no different, is removing venous clot. To get a disease state claim like treating DVT, we would have to do, as most everybody else did, probably 100-120 patients, single arm, following up for 30 days. And that would give us a DVT claim. We don't see it as a huge disadvantage at this point. Some people still don't have a DVT claim. But eventually, if we wanted to get that claim in bed, that's what we would do after we enter the market. Okay. And then I guess similar question. So I know that the PE version's not as far along, but do you think with that application, would you need to get the actual indication for PE with that, or could you do okay without that? I think that one is more important to get the indication for PE, pretty much from the get-go, maybe an IDE with a clinical and a 510(k) to get it. We have some ways where we can actually do that much more efficiently than in the past. But yes, that's not the genre of product where you could say, "Remove pulmonary vascular clot. Yeah. I mean, it's a little more like a threatening situation, I guess. So, okay. Let's move on. So, Sublime, can you just talk about give us an update on Sublime, how that's going, and what do you think the TAM is there? Yeah. So Sublime, it's the TAM where if you look at just rigorous market data, you would say, and I don't know my sources for this, Mike, but less than 10% of U.S. cases are radial to the periphery, right? And you know how long we've talked how long it took for the adoption from radial to the coronaries, which is a pretty straight shot, right? And so I think it's less than 10%. But the TAM really is, and this is going to sound like heresy, so I want to be careful how I put it. The TAM is really almost everything, right, that you can fit through a 5-French vessel, 6-French sheath, that you can get to the big toe is really a candidate. And so that TAM is really tantamount to the value of peripheral artery treatment, right? Now, clearly, huge things are going to get through there. So that TAM, to me, is maybe not $2 billion, but at least $1.5 billion for something like that. The rate of adoption is a throttle response, right? So it's a much bigger TAM, and it just is not fully developed yet. Mike, just to add to Gary's comments, in our investor deck, we do provide a TAM for radial based upon the products that we have in our bag today, which is a little less than $500 million. I think that market is, as Gary mentioned, penetrated to the tune of less than 10%. You bring all the other technologies into play, it's a pretty significant TAM. Yeah. For the products that you have in your lineup with Sublime, I mean, does that? I think I know we've talked about Terumo being a competitor there, but are there other companies out there in this space? I mean, typically, Merit plays in that space. Clearly, Cordis is playing in that space as well. Terumo really started off with a very early head start in that space. By the way, I wouldn't disparage anybody else's products. They're all trying to solve the same problem. They literally don't have the technology we do to get a 2.5-meter balloon down, rapid exchange, but the same pushability of an over-the-wire. That's not there. And we talked about so it's access, crossing, and treatment, right? So you got access there. Think about it. No one has. I have a 5-French wrist. I'm a small guy, right? If you have to go radial and medial, you can't until Surmodics has the only 5-French sheaths, right? So access is one thing. We already lead the world in the offering. Crossing is another thing. So you know how the coronary CTO mafia, they call them? I mean, for years, that market developed how to cross a coronary CTO. In the same way, now you have to be able to cross calcified lesions, and you're pushing from a little bit further. So we're developing the first line of high-performance microcatheters that basically if this is a guidewire and it's hitting a lesion, it's going to buckle, and you can't get through. A microcatheter supports that guidewire so you can cork, screw your way through the lesion. Once you get your guidewire across, now you can treat. You can get devices across. Doing that from the wrist and even doing it from the femoral approach in the periphery, there aren't any to date, any high-performance microcatheters that the coronary operators have. We intend to launch those again in the second half of our fiscal year, our Sublime 014, 018, and 035 microcatheters that can nest in each other and are spin deliverable. It's unheard of in industry. We're not quite there yet. We're there with the design. We have the approval, but we have to get there with the manufacturing and the supply chain before we feel comfortable. So that will enable the fear of, "Okay, I can get access, but Gary, I can't cross now. I hit some calcium there. Now I have to do a transfemoral puncture," right? If we can get them there with the microcatheters, it'll open up the market. And Mike, the difference in adoption, I think, with coronary versus radial is there's a huge economic benefit for radial to periphery because you can get more cases in your office-based lab per day. That's one thing we didn't have in a hot in-hospital coronary world. Okay. Got it. We're running out of time here, so I still have a lot of questions. But let me see. What can I prioritize here? I guess just move on to some of the financial questions. So one question I have is just kind of around both SurVeil and then these other Pounce and Sublime. What do those mean to your gross margin? I mean, I got to imagine, historically, prior to these things, you were kind of, I think, around 80 or something. And I got to imagine these are going to be dilutive a bit to the gross margin. I mean, is that a reasonable assumption? Yeah. Mike, thank you. I'll take the question. The 80% that you reference is really the gross profit margin, not the product gross profit margin. So big distinction. Surmodics benefits from a nice royalty revenue stream. But you are right. So if I just look at it from a product gross margin perspective, our legacy businesses have traditionally generated product gross margins between the high 60s% and low 70s%. SurVeil will be a headwind from a percentage perspective. As I described, we've got both Abbott and Surmodics who are participating in the revenue stream and the profitability of the product. But it will be accretive in terms of the product gross margin dollars, right? As far as a margin percentage as it pertains to Pounce and Sublime, on a blended basis, that should be accretive, right? If you think about thrombectomy devices that are more mechanical and less aspiration in nature, typically have higher product gross margins, we expect that we should be able to see a bit of a tailwind on that front. Okay. Got it. And then the guidance that you've given for fiscal 2024 implies a pretty big decline in your operating income and net income last year. So can you just talk about what's driving that? I love the question. Thank you for reminding everybody that there is an impact related to a significant milestone payment that we received from Abbott in fiscal 2023 as a result of the PMA approval for the SurVeil drug-coated balloon. As folks may recall, that was a $27 million payment. We didn't capture or reflect all of that on the P&L. It was closer to about $25 million. So if you think about it, we actually are improving year-over-year, both on the top line as well as on the bottom of the P&L when you normalize, i.e., exclude for the SurVeil milestone payment. Whole business engine of products and stuff are much better this year. But there's no way to overcome that huge milestone. We'll take it, but you have to take it out of the calculus. Yeah. Okay. That makes sense. All right. I think we're out of time, so we're going to have to stop there. But thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Appreciate it, Mike. Thanks, Mike. Thanks for the invitation. Okay.