And that demographic, of course, is growing as the population ages. So I think that while the PCIOL market may have, we might have seen, or some people have reported a flattening of that, the overall premium market continues to grow. Obviously, we’re a part of that, but the toric market continues to grow, and I think both of those are indicative of this drive to quality of vision, and we can’t underestimate that that patients really do value quality vision.
Patrick Wood: That’s helpful. I guess I meant more that the clinics themselves have been losing some of the patients on the refractive side and a little bit more sluggish on the other side, and therefore you can help them with that, because your business is obviously additive to them. I guess I was coming at it more from the clinic angle?
Ron Kurtz: Yes, absolutely. I mean, I think that’s an argument that our sales force is making that as the corneal refractive business goes up and down, ebbs and flows with the economy, certainly focusing on the premium IOL business, particularly one that provides high-quality vision is a much better long-term investment.
Patrick Wood: That’s super helpful. And then follow-on, I know it must be hard for you guys to get this kind of data, but do you have any sense for how often you’re getting bilateral implantation? Because obviously for some patients, monovision, if they’re not familiar with it, can be a good, and sometimes it can be a bad fit. Do you know how often you’re getting implanted, say, with an EDOF or trifocal simultaneously?
Ron Kurtz: I think that that’s pretty unusual. We don’t have firm numbers, but we do have a large data registry, which has over, last time it was reported on, it was over 800 subjects. And in those patients, about 90% were bilateral — bilateral LAL and presumably some of the residual patients either only had monocular cataract, which is certainly possible, or they had previous cataract surgery in one eye, possibly with a monofocal IOL or with a different premium IOL. You’re beginning to see some talks from doctors, which are talking about using the LAL with perhaps a PCIOL, but I think with the addition of LAL Plus, that’s probably going to be less important.
Patrick Wood: Super helpful. Thank you for taking the questions.
Operator: Thank you. One moment for the next question. Next question comes from the line of Tom Stephan of Stifel. Please go ahead.
Thomas Stephan: Great. Hey, guys, thanks for taking the questions. First one on LAL Plus for me. Ron, I guess over time or once the full LAL Plus launch is in motion, is there a way we should be thinking about the split between legacy LAL and LAL Plus? I guess just trying to get a better sense for what level of impact do you anticipate LAL Plus having on the business relative to the legacy lens? And then I have a follow-up.
Ron Kurtz: Well, obviously, we want to have a positive impact too, we wouldn’t have introduced it, but I think people have recognized, or increasingly recognize that the LAL delivers exceptionally high-quality vision and can be used with a blended vision approach to provide a range of vision. And that works really well. We see again in our registry data that over — approximately 90% of patients are seeing 20/20 at distance and able to read J2 at near, which is about 5.5, so it’s the size of a footnote on a page. So I think that that’s a great solution. To the extent that doctors felt that, gee, they wanted to have more immediate near vision and they might have not considered an LAL in a particular patient, I think the LAL Plus is going to give them additional motivation to get the benefits of adjustability. And there are a lot of them, as we’ve talked about.
Shelley Thunen: The other thing I’d point out is both the LAL and LAL Plus, which we really just call our LAL platform, are both priced at $1,000 per IOL. And so we wouldn’t see any mix change due to pricing.
Thomas Stephan: Got it. That’s helpful. Oh, go ahead.
Ron Kurtz: I’m sorry, just the intent there is that we want the doctor and the patient to choose the best LAL for their case.
Thomas Stephan: Perfect. That makes sense. And then quicker follow-up to shifting gears, just on Europe. Ron, could you maybe compare and contrast the US and European markets, just as we try to think about your ramp in the US in the context of, I guess, what’s to come in Europe down the line, maybe you could talk to the competitive landscape, regulatory, any other key factors? Thanks.
Ron Kurtz: Well, I think that it’s always hard to generalize about a whole continent. There are a number of countries in Europe and each of one has individual market characteristics. So we don’t necessarily look at it as Europe, we look at it as specific markets within Europe. They do for the most part share a regulatory process, which has gotten more complicated, especially over the last year or so. But overall, it’s a large market, wealthy market, and ultimately patients are driven by the same motivations as they are everywhere else. They want to have high-quality vision and excellent range of vision, and I think that ultimately there’ll be a number of very attractive markets for the LAL.
Thomas Stephan: That’s great. Thanks again.
Operator: All right. Thank you. One moment for our next question. All right. Our final question comes from the line of David Saxon of Needham and Company. Your line is now open.
David Saxon: Great. Good afternoon, Ron and Shelley. Thanks for taking my questions. Apologies if any of these have been asked. Shelley, maybe I’ll start with you. I know we talked about patents a couple of months ago. You have a couple expiring in ’26, I believe, but can you remind us what those ones are and then when the kind of key patents expire and generally how you feel about the IP portfolio? And then I’ll have a quick couple of follow-ups.
