We are currently appealing the Courts ruling. If we are prohibited from selling our products in Germany, or if our products are recalled in Germany, our business, operations, financial
results and reputation could be adversely impacted.
The 2018 Delaware Action
On October 25, 2018, Bio-Rad filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware,
alleging that substantially all of our products, including our GEM products and Next GEM products, infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 9,562,837 and 9,896,722. Bio-Rad seeks injunctive relief, unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys fees. Discovery is in progress. A trial is scheduled in September 2021. If we are found to infringe these patents or if we are prohibited from selling our products, our business, operations, financial results and
reputation could be significantly adversely impacted.
The Massachusetts Action
On September 11, 2019, Bio-Rad filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware,
alleging that our Next GEM products infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,871,444. On November 5, 2019, Bio-Rad amended the complaint to additionally allege that our Next GEM products infringe
certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,919,277 and 10,190,115. The 444 and 277 patents are exclusively licensed by Bio-Rad from Harvard University, which subsequently joined the suit as a party
plaintiff.
On December 18, 2019, Bio-Rad dismissed this action in the District of Delaware and refiled it in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case is assigned to Judge William G. Young. On January 14, 2020, the judge consolidated this case with a separate action, Bio-Rad
Laboratories Inc. et al. v. Stilla Technologies, Inc., in which Bio-Rad is asserting the 444 patent (among other patents) against Stilla Technologies, Inc.s droplet digital PCR product. On
January 23, 2020, we filed a motion to dismiss the case and to transfer the 115 patent to the Northern District of California, where the related 059 patent is stayed. A hearing on our motion to dismiss and transfer is scheduled in
March 2020.
On January 24, 2020, we filed antitrust counterclaims against Bio-Rad alleging violations of
(a) Section 7 of the Clayton Act, (b) Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and (c) California unfair competition laws, for illegally acquiring Raindance Technologies and illegally monopolizing or attempting to monopolize markets
relating to droplet digital PCR products, droplet single cell products and droplet genetic analysis technology. On February 19, 2020, Bio-Rad moved to dismiss, or alternatively to stay and sever, our antitrust claims. A hearing on
Bio-Rads motion to dismiss is scheduled in March 2020.
On February 5, we filed additional counterclaims against
Bio-Rad alleging that Bio-Rads single cell ATAC-seq products infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,029,085 and 9,850,526 that are
exclusively licensed to us from Harvard University.
A Markman hearing has been scheduled in June 2020. The judge has ordered the parties to be ready for
trial with respect to our antitrust counterclaims by April 2021. A trial date for Bio-Rads patent claims and our patent counterclaims has not yet been set, but may be set for shortly after the antitrust
trial.
If we are found to infringe the asserted patents or if we are prohibited from selling our products, our business, operations, financial results
and reputation could be significantly adversely impacted.
We are involved in lawsuits to protect, enforce or defend our patents and other
intellectual property rights, which are expensive, time consuming and could ultimately be unsuccessful.
On January 11, 2018, we filed a
complaint against Bio-Rad at the ITC pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 alleging that Bio-Rad infringes our U.S. Patent Nos. 9,644,204, 9,689,024,
9,695,468 and 9,856,530 (the ITC 1100 Action). The judge issued an Initial Determination on July 12, 2019 finding that Bio-Rads ddSEQ products infringe the 024, 468 and
530 patents. The judge also found all of our asserted patents to be valid and rejected Bio-Rads claim of ownership in all of the asserted patents.
59