Inbrain Neuroelectronics

Phase A — Understand the business

Lens 1 · Company Overview

INBRAIN Neuroelectronics is a Barcelona-based brain-computer-interface therapeutics (BCI-Tx) company — the distinction is the whole thesis. Founded in 2019 as a spin-off of the Catalan Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (ICN2), ICREA, IMB-CNM-CSIC and the EU Graphene Flagship programme. Where Neuralink and Synchron chase assistive BCI (let a paralysed person move a cursor), INBRAIN is building a closed-loop neuromodulation device that reads and writes neural signals to treat disease — Parkinson's first, then epilepsy, stroke rehabilitation and, prospectively, psychiatric/memory disorders.

The differentiator is the material: an ultrathin (~10 µm, thinner than a human hair) graphene cortical/cortical-surface interface, versus the platinum/iridium and silicon microelectrodes everyone else uses. The pitch is that graphene's conductivity, surface area, flexibility and biocompatibility let it record function-specific biomarkers "metals can barely see," conform to the brain surface with less tissue damage, and — critically — both sense and stimulate at micrometric resolution (a bidirectional interface), enabling adaptive personalised stimulation rather than the fixed open-loop pulse of a 2010s DBS device.

Structure. Two vehicles:

• INBRAIN Neuroelectronics S.L. — the core graphene BCI / cortical platform (the brain side).
• Innervia Bioelectronics — a subsidiary spun out to attack peripheral / vagus-nerve bioelectronic therapies, which is the vehicle Merck KGaA partnered with (see Lens 3).

Customers / payment structure. Pre-revenue — there is no commercial product and no recurring revenue. Future model is a high-acuity implantable medical device sold into neurosurgery / movement-disorder centres, reimbursed through DBS-style procedure + device-and-programming pathways. The current "customers" are really partners and grant bodies: Merck KGaA (pharma co-development), Microsoft (Azure AI), imec (manufacturing scale-up), the EU/Spanish state (EIC, CDTI, PERTE Chip), and the NHS/University of Manchester clinical sites. `` customers.csv is empty — confirmed no disclosed revenue concentration because there is no revenue.

Lens 2 · Supply Chain

Mapped upstream → INBRAIN → end patient, named stakeholders:

• Graphene material / wafer-scale fabrication. The hard input. Graphene for neural-grade electrodes is not a commodity buy — it is co-developed with the Graphene Flagship ecosystem and Spanish nanofab institutes (ICN2, IMB-CNM-CSIC). In 2025 INBRAIN took a €4M grant from Spain's PERTE Chip programme to advance graphene BCI fabrication, and CSO Jose Garrido sits inside INNOFAB, a €260M Spanish/Catalan semiconductor-grade fab initiative. imec (the world's leading nanoelectronics hub) is the named partner for scaling graphene interfaces to commercial level — a 2024 collaboration agreement, and imec.xpand led the Series B, so the manufacturing partner is also an equity owner.
• Device assembly / electronics / implantable hardware. Active electronics, encapsulation, the implantable pulse generator side — partially in-house, partially via medtech contract manufacturers (not publicly named) ``.
• AI / compute layer. Microsoft Azure is the named cloud + AI partner (time-series LLMs, agentic constructs for closed-loop decode/modulate). This is a real software dependency for the "intelligent" part of the platform.
• Clinical / regulatory channel. University of Manchester / Northern Care Alliance NHS (Salford Royal, Manchester Centre for Clinical Neurosciences) is the first-in-human site and trial sponsor.
• Pharma co-development. Merck KGaA for the Innervia vagus-nerve programmes.

Chokepoint / single-source risk. The defining dependency is neural-grade graphene fabrication at GMP scale. This is INBRAIN's moat and its single largest execution risk: there is no merchant market for implantable graphene electrodes, so the company must essentially industrialise a new materials supply chain itself (with imec / Spanish fabs). The chain "fails generic" warning from the skill is satisfied with named parties — but note that headcount, GMP-line status and yield are not disclosed ``, and that opacity is itself a flag for a hardware company claiming a near-term scale story.

Lens 3 · Competitive Advantages (moats)

The moat is the material + the IP around it. INBRAIN is a top innovator in a field of 2,160+ BCI patent families across 664 organisations, specifically as the recognised leader in graphene-based neural interfaces. The patent estate traces to ICN2/IMB-CNM/ICREA and the Graphene Flagship and is genuinely differentiated — almost nobody else is building a clinical-stage graphene cortical interface. Durable-moat assessment:

• IP / process moat — real but narrow. First-mover on graphene neural electrodes, deep academic IP, world-first human graphene implant (Sept 2024). But it is a single-material bet. If the clinical advantage of graphene over best-in-class thin-film platinum/PtIr proves marginal, the moat is a science project, not a franchise.
• Switching costs / regulatory moat — not yet earned. No approved product → no installed base → no switching cost yet. The FDA Breakthrough Device Designation for Parkinson's is a real regulatory tailwind (priority review interaction), but it is not clearance.
• Bargaining power — weak today. As a pre-revenue Series-B company it needs Merck, Microsoft, imec and the EU more than they need it. The Merck/Innervia and Microsoft deals are validation, but INBRAIN is the junior party in all of them.
• The strategic positioning advantage — therapeutics not assistive. This is the smartest part of the moat: by aiming at disease modification (Parkinson's/epilepsy) rather than the crowded paralysis-cursor space, INBRAIN targets the DBS replacement/upgrade market (an existing, reimbursed, multi-billion-dollar category) rather than an unproven consumer/assistive market. That is a more defensible commercial wedge than Neuralink's.

Verdict on moat: narrow-but-real materials/IP edge + a smart therapeutics positioning, undercut by the fact that the closest "thin, flexible, high-channel-count" competitor (Precision Neuroscience) reached FDA clearance first with a non-graphene film (Lens 7/12).

Lens 4 · Segments

`` segments.csv is empty — no segment revenue exists (pre-revenue). Structural segmentation by program / vehicle rather than revenue:

The intraoperative mapping segment is the under-appreciated one: it is a far shorter regulatory path (an acute, sub-30-day surgical-tool use, like Precision's cleared indication) than a chronic implanted Parkinson's therapy, and is the most plausible route to first revenue — though the company frames itself around the bigger Parkinson's prize.

---

Phase B — Measure performance (+private +clinical swap: funding trajectory + pipeline-by-phase)

Lens 5 · Funding & Valuation Trajectory (operating-Lens-5 swapped per +private overlay)

INBRAIN has raised ~$99.85M across ~12 rounds to date, per aggregators. Round history:

• Valuation: n/a — not disclosed. No post-money is public. EquityZen/Tracxn list it as a pre-IPO secondary name but publish no firm mark ``. Do not fabricate a number.
• Burn / runway signal: A $50M Series B (Oct 2024) into a hardware + clinical company with two clinical programmes and a graphene fab build is not a long runway — `` 18–30 months at medtech-clinical burn, implying a Series C is needed roughly 2026–2027. The $4.5M grant top-up in mid-2025 is consistent with stretching runway. This is the single most important near-term fact: the next financing is the next catalyst, and there is no public Series C yet.
• Investor quality: imec.xpand leading is a genuine strategic tell (the manufacturing partner taking equity), and EIC Fund / CDTI signal heavy EU-sovereign-tech backing. But the syndicate is European deep-tech / strategic, not the US crossover funds (Fidelity, T. Rowe, Coatue) whose entry would signal IPO proximity. No crossover = early.

Lens 6 · Founder & Management Signal (calls→founder-interview swap per +private)

No earnings calls exist. Tone read from CEO Carolina Aguilar's public interviews/talks (Inside Precision Medicine, LSI, imec ITF, elemed): consistently therapeutics-first, disease-modification framing — "the larger opportunity is to treat disease directly, not just decode the brain." Messaging is disciplined and commercially literate (she ran a real P&L), not the moonshot-hype register of some BCI peers. Recurring themes: graphene as enabling material, closed-loop adaptive therapy, Parkinson's as the wedge, European deep-tech sovereignty. No tonal red flags (no over-promising on timelines to approval; she is careful to say BDD ≠ approval).

Lens 7 · Cap Table, Secondary Marks & Mechanism Comps (comps→private+clinical swap)

Cap table / secondary: Syndicate is strategic-European (imec.xpand, EIC Fund, CDTI, Asabys, Aliath, Vsquared, Merck KGaA strategic). ~20 investors per aggregators. No crossover-fund / late-stage-growth marks public; secondary marks n/a — not disclosed.

BCI peer comps (the real benchmark — by funding/stage/approach, since multiples don't exist for any of these private names):

Mechanism takeaway: INBRAIN is the only graphene-native player and the most explicitly therapeutic/DBS-replacement positioned — a genuinely differentiated lane. But on capital and regulatory progress it is behind: ~$100M raised vs. Neuralink's ~$1.85B, and Precision Neuroscience already holds FDA 510(k) clearance for a competing thin, flexible, high-channel surface array — the exact "minimally invasive, conformal, high-resolution" claim INBRAIN makes for graphene, achieved first with a non-graphene film. That is the central comp risk.

Lens 8 · Funding / Product / Catalyst Events (the "price" proxy)

For a private, the equivalent of "what moves the stock" is what moves the narrative and the next mark:

• Sept 2024 — world-first human graphene BCI implant (Salford Royal) → flagship credibility event.
• Oct 2024 — $50M Series B close → capital + imec.xpand validation.
• May 2025 — €4M PERTE Chip grant → fab/runway top-up.
• Jul 2025 — positive FIH interim analysis (first 4 patients, no device-related AEs; high-gamma phoneme decoding) → safety/efficacy signal.
• Nov 2025 — Microsoft Azure agentic-AI collaboration → AI-platform narrative.
• Apr 2026 — FIH study enrolment complete (10 enrolled, 8 surgically treated, no perioperative device failure) → de-risks the mapping indication.

Pattern: the market (private investors) reacts to clinical firsts and major-partner validation. The next narrative-moving events are a Series C and full data readout / publication from the completed FIH study.

---

Phase C — Judge people & books

Lens 9 · Management

CEO & co-founder — Carolina Aguilar. The standout asset of the whole company. ~20 years in healthcare; 13 years at Medtronic (European HQ, Switzerland), a decade running the global neuromodulation / Deep Brain Stimulation business with a P&L of >$140M, plus value-based-healthcare deal-making (won the 2017 European VBHC prize, signed a Saudi diabetes VBHC deal). This is precisely the rare profile a therapeutic-BCI company needs: someone who has actually sold and reimbursed DBS at scale, not just an academic or a software founder. Background started in toxicology / Parkinson's–pesticide research — domain-aligned. Skin in the game: co-founder equity (material) ``; exact stake not disclosed.

Scientific founders: Prof. Jose A. Garrido (ICREA, ICN2 Advanced Electronic Materials group — CSO; also inside the INNOFAB fab initiative), Prof. Kostas Kostarelos (Professor of Nanomedicine, University of Manchester — Chief Scientific Investigator on the FIH study), and Dr. Anton Guimerà (IMB-CNM-CSIC). This is a first-rate scientific bench — the people who literally pioneered graphene neural interfaces, embedded in the EU Graphene Flagship.

Archetype: a professional-operator CEO (ex-Medtronic) on top of an elite academic founding team — arguably the ideal configuration for a clinical-stage neuromodulation company (commercial discipline + deep science), and a notable contrast to founder-engineer-led peers. Capital-allocation history is short (one priced round) but disciplined (grant-funded fab build, partner-funded programmes conserve dilution). Red flags: none material on the people; the risk is execution/capital, not governance.

Lens 10 · Forensic Red Flags

There is no audited financial statement to forensically dissect — INBRAIN is a private Spanish S.L. with no SEC filings (research-layer: filings=0, CIK=null). So this lens is necessarily about disclosure quality and structural risk, not income-statement forensics:

• Opacity is the flag. No disclosed revenue (expected — pre-revenue), but also no disclosed headcount, no GMP-line/yield status, no post-money valuation, no burn figure. For a hardware company whose entire thesis is "we can manufacture graphene neural electrodes at scale," the absence of any public manufacturing-readiness metric is the thing a skeptic flags. ``.
• Two-entity structure (INBRAIN S.L. / Innervia). Spinning the vagus-nerve programme into Innervia for the Merck deal is sensible ring-fencing, but it does mean the economics of the Merck partnership accrue partly to a separate vehicle — worth understanding before assigning the Merck deal full credit to INBRAIN equity.
• Grant dependence. A meaningful slice of funding is EU/Spanish state grants (EIC, CDTI, PERTE Chip, Graphene Flagship). Non-dilutive and validating, but grant-funded runway can mask the true commercial burn and is not a substitute for private growth capital.

Regulatory findings (required sub-section). Per regulatory/regulatory-findings.md (fetched 2026-06-24): INBRAIN has no SEC CIK — it is private and files nothing with the SEC, so no EDGAR Litigation Releases or AAERs are searchable; 0 SEC findings. Non-SEC web search ("Inbrain Neuroelectronics" (FTC OR DOJ OR FDA OR settlement OR fine OR penalty) enforcement) returns no material enforcement, litigation, consent decree, or penalty against INBRAIN. On the FDA side the only material interactions are positive (Breakthrough Device Designation for the Parkinson's platform; the FIH study runs under University-of-Manchester sponsorship / UK MHRA-style oversight, no safety holds reported). Conclusion: no material regulatory or legal findings — verified via SEC EDGAR EFTS (no CIK → none possible), web enforcement search, and public clinical disclosures as of 2026-06-24. All findings web-sourced and unaudited per the private-company limitation.

---

Phase D — Project & stress-test (+clinical swap: rNPV / runway-to-catalyst, not EPS)

Lens 11 · IPO-Readiness & Path-to-Tradeable + Runway-to-Catalyst (forward-projection swap)

There is no EPS to project (pre-revenue, private). Two projections that matter:

(a) Path-to-tradeable / IPO readiness. On the skill's 1–5 scale: INBRAIN ≈ 2 (growth-stage), not pre-IPO.

• Stage: Series B, $50M (Oct 2024), ~$100M total, no Series C yet.
• Milestones that must clear before an S-1 is even conceivable: (1) a Series C with growth/crossover investors; (2) a pivotal-trial-grade clinical dataset (not just a 10-patient FIH mapping study) — i.e. an IDE/PMA-track Parkinson's or a cleared mapping product generating revenue; (3) demonstrated GMP manufacturing of graphene electrodes at scale. Estimated window to tradeable: not before ~2028–2030, and more likely via M&A by a strategic (Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, or Merck) than an IPO — a graphene-DBS asset with Aguilar's ex-Medtronic provenance is a natural tuck-in for an incumbent neuromodulation franchise ``.
• Action: there is no private-watch.json entry for INBRAIN today — this name should be added to the be-early ledger (beat: bci, stage: growth/Series-B, ipo_readiness: 2, lead: imec.xpand, catalyst: "Series C + FIH data readout + GMP graphene scale; likely strategic-M&A exit"). (Noted for Connor to action; this unattended run does not edit research/ files per the wave boundaries.)

(b) Runway-to-catalyst (the question that actually matters for a clinical private). Does cash reach the next value-inflection event? ``: $50M Series B (Oct 2024) + €4M grant (May 2025), against dual-programme clinical + graphene-fab burn → runway plausibly into 2026–2027. The next value-inflection catalysts are: the full FIH study readout/publication (enrolment completed Apr 2026 → data H2 2026), and the Series C raise. The bear scenario is a runway-to-catalyst gap — needing to raise before a clean therapeutic dataset, into a tougher 2026 venture market for capital-intensive hardware, at a flat or down mark.

Brier forecast (per skill, clinical names log a binary readout, not an EPS line): Candidate — "INBRAIN announces a closed Series C (or strategic equity round >$40M) by 2026-12-31, p≈0.45 ``." Not logged — forecast.ts create is skipped in the unattended --watchlist loop per the skill (only log a forecast on a genuinely committed base case); recorded here for Connor to action if he promotes this name.

Lens 12 · Bull vs Bear

Bull case. INBRAIN is the only graphene-native BCI company, with a first-rate scientific founding team, a world-first human graphene implant already done, FDA Breakthrough Device Designation for Parkinson's, and — uniquely among BCI startups — a CEO who ran a >$140M DBS P&L at Medtronic. It is aimed at the right market (disease-modifying neuromodulation / DBS replacement — large, reimbursed, real) rather than the speculative assistive-cursor space. If graphene's bidirectional, micrometric, low-immune-response profile delivers a clinically meaningful advantage over platinum/PtIr and thin-film for adaptive Parkinson's therapy, INBRAIN owns a defensible materials franchise and is an obvious strategic acquisition target for Medtronic/Boston Scientific/Abbott. The Merck and Microsoft deals validate both the therapeutic and the AI-platform optionality. It is the best-positioned European BCI pure-play.

Bear case (2–3 permanent-impairment risks).

1. Material-advantage risk. The entire premise is that graphene specifically beats incumbents. If the clinical delta is marginal — and Precision Neuroscience already won FDA 510(k) clearance (Mar 2025) for a thin, flexible, 1,024-channel non-graphene surface array delivering the same "conformal, high-resolution, minimally invasive" benefits — then graphene is an elegant science project without a commercial moat. This is the existential risk.
2. Capital / dilution risk. ~$100M raised vs. peers at $150M–$1.85B. A capital-intensive graphene-fab + dual-clinical build needs a Series C soon, into a harder 2026 market for hardware. A down round or a forced strategic sale at a low mark permanently impairs early-investor economics.
3. Timeline risk. A therapeutic (chronic implanted Parkinson's) device is a long IDE→PMA path measured in years; the company is still at 10-patient FIH mapping. The gap between today's milestones and an approved revenue product is large, and the runway must bridge it.

Pre-mortem (18 months out, thesis broke): INBRAIN had to raise a Series C in late 2026 before a clean therapeutic dataset, took a flat/down round in a cold hardware market, while Precision Neuroscience (already FDA-cleared) and Synchron (in pivotal PMA) pulled commercially ahead — and the graphene clinical advantage proved real but not differentiating enough to command a premium, so the most likely outcome compressed to a modest strategic acquisition.

Contrarian view of what the market refuses to see: the crowd narrative is "BCI = Neuralink = paralysis/cursor moonshot." INBRAIN is a different and arguably better business — a reimbursed-market neuromodulation play run by a DBS commercial veteran. The market under-weights the ex-Medtronic-operator + DBS-replacement angle and over-indexes on channel counts and Musk headlines.

Lens 13 · Devil's Advocate (short-seller)

Dismantling the bull case:

• Where the model breaks: graphene is a single-point-of-failure thesis. If neural-grade graphene can't be manufactured at GMP scale and yield economically (and there is zero public manufacturing-readiness data), or if its clinical advantage is marginal, there is no business — just IP to be acqui-hired cheaply.
• Concentration: "revenue" is zero; validation is concentrated in a handful of partners (Merck, Microsoft, imec) where INBRAIN is the junior party — any of them walking away guts the narrative.
• Most dangerous competitor bulls underestimate: Precision Neuroscience. Same "thin, flexible, conformal, high-channel surface array" claim, already FDA-cleared (Mar 2025), no exotic-material manufacturing risk, US-capital-backed. It can reach the intraoperative-mapping and surface-BCI market years before INBRAIN's graphene therapy — and it doesn't need to prove a new materials supply chain. Plus the incumbents (Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott) own the DBS channel INBRAIN wants to disrupt.
• Capital allocation / structure: the Innervia carve-out means the Merck-deal economics don't fully accrue to INBRAIN equity; heavy grant dependence can flatter runway and obscure true burn.
• Assumptions that must hold for the (undisclosed) price: graphene clinically differentiates and manufactures at scale; a Series C closes near a flat-or-up mark; the therapeutic path converts FIH → pivotal → approval on a fundable timeline. If growth/clinical disappoints 20–30%, this is a down-round or distressed-M&A candidate, not a markup.
• Single scenario that permanently impairs: a competitor's cleared, non-graphene flexible array captures the surface-BCI / intraoperative-mapping beachhead first and INBRAIN's chronic-therapy data slips past its runway — forcing a raise from weakness. Plausibility: moderate, and rising the longer the Series C is absent.

Lens 14 · Management Questions (ordered by information value)

1. What is current cash runway in months, and at what date do you need the next financing — and is a Series C term sheet in hand?
2. Show the head-to-head clinical/bench data: where does graphene measurably outperform best-in-class thin-film PtIr (e.g. Precision's Layer 7) on signal fidelity, longevity, and immune response — and is the delta commercially decisive or merely real?
3. What is the GMP manufacturing status of the graphene electrode — line, yield, scale, cost-per-device trajectory? (The single biggest undisclosed.)
4. What is the regulatory path and timeline to first revenue — is it the acute intraoperative-mapping clearance (510(k)-style, near-term) or the chronic Parkinson's therapy (IDE→PMA, years)? Which are you prioritising and why?
5. How do the economics split between INBRAIN S.L. and Innervia — what does INBRAIN equity actually own of the Merck-partnered vagus-nerve programmes?
6. What are the deal terms and milestone economics of the Merck KGaA collaboration (upfront, milestones, royalties, exclusivity)?
7. Is the end-game an IPO or a strategic acquisition — and given your ex-Medtronic DNA, are you building to be bought by a neuromodulation incumbent?
8. What does the Microsoft Azure collaboration actually commit (compute credits, co-development, equity, IP ownership of the AI models) — and how dependent is the closed-loop product on it?
9. What is the full readout from the completed Manchester FIH study (efficacy endpoints, not just safety), and when does it publish?
10. What is your headcount and burn split across R&D / clinical / manufacturing?
11. Who are your non-academic implantable-device contract manufacturers, and how single-sourced is the active-electronics/encapsulation side?
12. What is the patent runway — earliest expiry on core graphene-electrode IP, and freedom-to-operate against the 2,160+ BCI patent families?
13. How much of total funding is non-dilutive grants vs. equity, and what is the equity-only burn?
14. What is your reimbursement strategy — do you ride the existing DBS procedure/device codes or need a new pathway, and in which geographies first?
15. What valuation did the Series B price at, and what mark are you targeting for the Series C?

---