A contractually specified period after an IPO or acquisition during which insiders and pre-existing stockholders are restricted from selling their shares.

Definition

A lock-up period is a contractual restriction, typically negotiated with the underwriters in connection with an initial public offering or included in a merger agreement, that prohibits officers, directors, founders, and other significant pre-IPO or pre-acquisition stockholders from selling, transferring, or hedging their shares for a defined period, commonly 180 days after an IPO. The purpose is to prevent a flood of insider selling immediately after a liquidity event from depressing the share price and to signal insider confidence in the company's post-event prospects. Lock-up agreements are typically disclosed in the IPO prospectus filed with the SEC and can include partial early-release provisions tied to trading price thresholds or the passage of specified time intervals.

Why it matters

For a MedTech company completing an IPO shortly after a pivotal trial readout or a first product launch, the lock-up period matters because early post-launch commercial and reimbursement data (initial sales trends, payer coverage decisions) often become public during the lock-up window and can move the stock significantly before insiders, including founders and early employees, are permitted to sell any shares.

Common pitfalls

•Assuming lock-up periods are uniform across all pre-IPO stockholders; employees, founders, and different investor classes can be subject to different lock-up lengths or early-release terms.
•Overlooking that a lock-up expiration date is public information often anticipated by the market, and share prices sometimes decline in the days before expiration due to expected selling pressure.
•Confusing an IPO lock-up with a separate M&A lock-up or escrow arrangement, which may impose different (and sometimes longer) restrictions tied to indemnification holdbacks rather than market stabilization.

Sources

SEC Investor.gov: Lock-Up Agreement · SEC Investor.gov
SEC: Initial Public Offerings · SEC
Cornell LII: Initial Public Offering · Cornell Law LII

Open full page

Select term B to compare.

Why compare MedTech terms side by side?

MedTech terminology is full of pairs that look interchangeable but carry very different regulatory, clinical, and commercial consequences. Picking the wrong framework, pathway, or standard early in a project can add months to a submission, invalidate clinical evidence, or trigger an audit finding. Side-by-side comparison is the fastest way to surface those differences before they become costly mistakes.

Each comparison on this page pulls from the same vendor-neutral, sourced definitions used throughout the MedTech Terms glossary. You see the one-line summary, the formal definition, why it matters in practice, common pitfalls, and the primary sources (FDA guidance, EU MDR/IVDR articles, ISO/IEC standards, MDCG documents, IMDRF principles) that back each entry. That makes the comparison defensible in regulatory strategy memos, design reviews, and submission narratives.

Common comparison patterns

Regulatory pathway choice - 510(k) vs PMA, 510(k) vs De Novo, Abbreviated vs Special 510(k).
Quality systems - QSR vs ISO 13485, QMSR vs QSR.
Software classification - SaMD vs SiMD, Locked vs adaptive AI.
EU frameworks - MDR vs IVDR, CE Mark vs UKCA.
Cybersecurity artifacts - SPDX vs CycloneDX SBOM, CVE vs CVSS.
Post-market actions - Recall vs field action, Removal vs correction.

How to use this tool

Pick term A and term B from the dropdowns, or click a preset above. The URL updates with both slugs so you can bookmark or share the exact comparison with a colleague, a notified body reviewer, or your regulatory consultant. Click Open full page on either side for the complete entry, including FAQs, related terms, and the full citation list. If you are not sure which term to start with, browse the Categories view or the A-Z index.

MedTech Terms is a vendor-neutral community resource sponsored by Blue Goat Cyber. Definitions are written for educational use and are not legal or regulatory advice.