Item 7.01
|
Regulation FD Disclosure.
|
The ITC 1068 Action
As previously disclosed: (a) on
July 31, 2017, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. (Bio-Rad) and Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC filed a complaint against 10x Genomics, Inc. (the
Company) in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, accusing substantially all of the Companys products of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 9,089,844, 9,126,160,
9,500,664, 9,636,682 and 9,649,635 (the ITC 1068 Action); and (b) in September 2018, the presiding Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination (the Initial Determination) (i) finding that the Companys
legacy Gel bead in Emulsion microfluidic chips (GEM microfluidic chips) infringe the 664, 682 and 635 patents but not the 160 patent, (ii) finding that the Companys gel bead manufacturing microfluidic
chip and new microfluidic chip (Next GEM microfluidic chip) do not infringe any of the patent claims asserted against them, (iii) recommending entry of an exclusion order against the Companys legacy GEM microfluidic chips and
(iv) recommending a cease and desist order that would prevent the Company from selling imported legacy GEM microfluidic chips.
On December 18,
2019, the ITC issued its final determination in the ITC 1068 Action (the Final Determination), which was received by the Company on December 19, 2019. The Final Determination affirmed the Administrative Law Judges ruling in
the Initial Determination that the Companys Next GEM microfluidic chips and gel bead manufacturing microfluidic chips do not infringe any of the claims asserted against them. As previously disclosed, since August 28, 2019, all Chromium
instruments that the Company sells and has sold operate exclusively with the Companys Next GEM solutions and the Company believes that the Companys Chromium products utilizing the Companys Next GEM microfluidic chips will
constitute substantially all of the Companys Chromium consumables sales by the end of 2020.
The Final Determination affirmed the Administrative Law
Judges ruling that the Companys legacy GEM microfluidic chips infringe the 664, 682 and 635 patents but not the 160 patent. The ITC issued (1) a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed
importation of the legacy GEM microfluidic chips into the United States and (2) a cease and desist order preventing the Company from selling such imported legacy GEM microfluidic chips in the United States. However, in response to the
multiple submissions from leading researchers regarding the importance of research enabled by the Companys products to ameliorate [such] significant public interest concerns, the ITC expressly allowed the importation and sale of
the legacy GEM microfluidic chips for use by researchers who are using such chips as of December 18, 2019, and who have a documented need to continue receiving such chips for a specific current ongoing research project for which that need
cannot be met by any alternative product.
Prior to the second quarter of 2019, all of the Companys microfluidic chips were manufactured outside of
the United States, but beginning in the third quarter of 2019, the Companys United States manufacturing facilities achieved volume production of certain of the Companys legacy GEM microfluidic chips accounting for the majority of the
Companys United States consumable revenue in that period.
The Final Determination is subject to a 60-day
presidential review period before taking effect. During the presidential review period, the Company is permitted to continue importation and sales of the legacy GEM microfluidic chips subject to payment of a bond. The ITC overturned the
Administrative Law Judges recommendation in the Initial Determination that the bond be one hundred (100) percent of the entered value of the accused microfluidic chips (approximately $7 per microfluidic chip) (the Entered
Value) and reduced the bond to three (3) percent of the Entered Value in the Final Determination.
Forward-Looking Statements
Statements in this Current Report on Form 8-K that are not statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements
within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), which are subject to the
safe harbor created by those sections. Such forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements concerning the Companys plans, objectives, goals, beliefs, including the Companys belief that Chromium products