XML 26 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies | 8. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings The Company is or has been involved in legal matters, including investigations, subpoenas, demands, disputes, litigation, requests for information, and other regulatory or administrative actions or proceedings, including those with respect to intellectual property, testing and test performance, billing, reimbursement, marketing, short seller and media allegations, employment, and other matters. The Company is responding to ongoing regulatory and governmental investigations, subpoenas and inquiries, and contesting its current legal matters, but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome with respect to any of the foregoing. There are many uncertainties associated with these matters. ​ The Company assesses legal contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in its financial statements. When evaluating legal contingencies, the Company may be unable to provide a reasonable estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and/or the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matters. In addition, damage amounts claimed in litigation or other matters may be unsupported, exaggerated or unrelated to possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of its potential liability. Loss contingencies, including claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, are recorded as liabilities when the likelihood of loss is probable and an amount or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. As of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company determined that the aggregate accrual for legal contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable is approximately $40.6 million and $12.6 million, respectively. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the matters described below and is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome of any such matters in excess of the amounts accrued by the Company. Intellectual Property Litigation Matters. The Company has been involved in two patent litigations against CareDx, Inc. (“CareDx”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“CareDx Patent Cases”). In the first CareDx Patent Case, CareDx alleged, in a complaint filed jointly with the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University in March 2019 and amended in March 2020, that the Company infringed three patents (the “CareDx Patents”). The complaint sought unspecified damages and injunctive relief. In September 2021, the Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment, finding all three CareDx Patents invalid. This finding was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CareDx’s petition for rehearing by the Federal Circuit, and its subsequent petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, were both denied. In the second CareDx Patent Case, the Company alleged, in suits filed in January 2020 and May 2022, infringement by CareDx of certain of the Company’s patents, seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. In January 2024, after trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company, finding both asserted patents valid and one patent infringed by CareDx (the “Infringed Patent”) and awarding damages to the Company for lost profits and past royalties totaling $96.3 million. In February 2025, the Court granted CareDx’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and invalidated both asserted Natera patents, including the Infringed Patent. The Company filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in March 2025. Separately, in October 2024, an ex-parte re-examination petition was filed by CareDx with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) challenging the validity of the Infringed Patent; but the USPTO ultimately denied the petition and upheld the challenged claims of the Infringed Patent in June 2025. In January 2020, the Company filed suit against ArcherDX, Inc. (“ArcherDX”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In January 2021, the Company named an additional Archer DX entity, ArcherDx LLC, and Invitae as defendants. The Company alleged, among other things, that certain ArcherDX products, including the Personalized Cancer Monitoring (“PCM”) test, infringed three of the Company’s patents (the “ArcherDX Case”) and sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. Following a jury trial in May 2023 and a bench trial in June 2023, all three asserted patents were found to be valid and infringed by ArcherDX and Invitae, and the jury awarded damages totaling $19.35 million to the Company. In November 2023, the Court granted in part the Company’s motion for a permanent injunction against the PCM test, which the defendants have appealed. In February 2024, Invitae and ArcherDX filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, resulting in an automatic bankruptcy stay in the case. The stay was lifted, and post-trial proceedings resumed, in November 2024. Defendants’ interim appeals remain stayed pending the Court’s final resolution of the post-trial motions. The Company is the subject of a lawsuit filed against it by Ravgen, Inc. (“Ravgen”) in June 2020 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of two Ravgen patents and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In January 2024, after trial, the jury returned a verdict of non-willful infringement by the Company and found damages of $57 million. Judgment has not been entered by the Court. The Company intends to appeal certain of the rulings. In addition, various parties, including the Company, have filed petitions challenging the validity of the asserted patents with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, all of which were instituted for review, and some of which were decided in favor of upholding the challenged claims. The petitions filed by the Company and certain others remain pending. In October 2020, the Company filed suit against Genosity Inc. (“Genosity”), in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that various Genosity products infringe one of the Company’s patents and seeking unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. The case has been stayed pending the entry of a final judgment in the ArcherDX Case, in which the subject patent is also asserted. In February 2024, Genosity filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company is the subject of lawsuits filed against it by Invitae in the United States District Court of the District of Delaware alleging, in complaints filed in May and November of 2021, infringement of three patents and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which motions are currently pending before the Court. In February 2024, as a result of Invitae’s voluntary Chapter 11 petition described above, the Court continued the trial, which is now scheduled for September 2025. Labcorp Holdings Inc. acquired the patents at issue in this case and is now the plaintiff. The Company filed suits against Inivata, Inc. and Inivata Ltd. (collectively “Inivata”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in January 2021 and December 2022, alleging that certain of Inivata’s oncology products infringe certain of the Company’s patents and seeking unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. The two suits have been consolidated. In March 2024, the Court stayed the case in light of the Company’s case against NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. (“NeoGenomics”), which acquired Inivata in 2021, discussed below. In July 2023, the Company filed suit against NeoGenomics in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (the “District Court”), alleging infringement of two Natera patents (the “’035 Patent” and the “’454 Patent”) by NeoGenomics’ commercialization of the RaDaR test and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In December 2023, the Court denied NeoGenomics’ motion to dismiss the complaint, and granted the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction. The injunction went into effect as of January 12, 2024 and was affirmed on appeal in July 2024 by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. NeoGenomics filed a petition with the USPTO to review the validity of the ’454 Patent, which was denied in June 2024. NeoGenomics also filed a petition with the USPTO to review the validity of the ‘035 Patent, which proceeding was terminated in October 2024. Pursuant to the terms of a partial settlement of the case, the District Court entered a permanent injunction against NeoGenomics, and it has withdrawn its RaDaR test from the market. The case remains pending with respect to an updated version of the RaDaR test and the ‘454 Patent, as well as an additional Natera patent (the “596 patent”) that was added to the case in December 2024. Neogenomics has filed an inter partes review challenging the validity of the ‘596 patent. The USPTO declined to institute a review and dismissed the challenge to the ‘596 patent. Trial is currently scheduled for October 2025. Other Litigation Matters. CareDx filed suit against the Company in April 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging false advertising, and related claims based on statements describing studies that concern the Company’s technology and CareDx’s technology, seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. The Company filed a counterclaim against CareDx in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging false advertising, unfair competition and deceptive trade practices and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. In March 2022, after trial, the jury returned a verdict that the Company was liable to CareDx and found damages of $44.9 million. The jury also returned a verdict against CareDx, finding that CareDx had engaged in false advertising. In July 2023, the Court granted in part the Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law requesting that the Court set aside the portions of the jury verdict adverse to the Company, ruling that CareDx is not entitled to any damages. The jury verdict of false advertising by CareDx remains in place. Both parties are appealing. The Company is involved in two lawsuits against Guardant Health, Inc. (“Guardant”). In May 2021, Guardant filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California alleging false advertising and related claims and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Also in May 2021, the Company filed suit against Guardant in the Western District of Texas, alleging false advertising and related claims. The Company has voluntarily dismissed its Texas suit against Guardant and has asserted the claims from the Texas action as counterclaims in the California action, seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. In August 2021, Guardant moved to dismiss the Company’s counterclaims, which motion was denied in all material respects. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which were granted in part and denied in part. In November 2024, after trial, the jury returned a verdict finding the Company liable for false advertising and found damages of $292.5 million. On July 28, 2025, the Court entered a final order largely upholding the jury verdict. The Company plans to appeal the final order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In February 2025, Guardant filed suit against the Company and two of its former employees who recently joined the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract and related tort claims, seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Concurrently with the filing of the complaint, Guardant also moved for a temporary restraining order and expedited discovery, which motions Guardant subsequently withdrew. In April 2025, Guardant voluntarily dismissed its claims against one of the employee defendants without prejudice. In November 2021, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by a patient alleging various causes of action relating to the Company’s patient billing and seeks, among other relief, class certification, injunctive relief, restitution and/or disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, and costs. In May 2023, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. In July 2023, the plaintiff filed analogous claims in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, and subsequently filed an amended claim with an additional plaintiff. Based on the additional plaintiff, the case was transferred back to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The parties subsequently agreed that claims brought by the original plaintiff be remanded back to the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, and that the action be stayed pending the outcome of the action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In February 2022, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Each suit was filed by an individual patient alleging various causes of action related to the marketing of Panorama and seeking, among other relief, class certification, monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. These matters have been consolidated. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated lawsuit, which resulted in the plaintiffs filing an amended complaint in April 2023. The Company and the plaintiffs have reached a settlement of all claims. The proposed settlement has been submitted to the District Court for approval. In March 2022, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its management in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, asserting claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company failed to disclose certain information regarding its Panorama test. The complaint sought, among other relief, monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. This matter was dismissed and the claims raised in this matter have been included in the lawsuit discussed below. A purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its management in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint, filed in April 2022 and amended in October 2022 (to include, among others, the claims raised in the lawsuit discussed in the preceding paragraph), alleges, among other things, that the management defendants made materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about certain of the Company’s products and operations. The complaint seeks, among other relief, monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, which was granted in part and denied in part. The Court has certified the class. In each of October 2023 and January 2024, shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, respectively, against the Company as nominal defendant and certain of the Company’s management. Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the management defendants made materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about certain of the Company’s products and operations. Each complaint seeks, among other relief, monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. In October 2024, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by patients alleging various causes of action relating to the Company’s preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidies. They request, among other relief, class certification, injunctive relief, restitution and/or disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was granted on August 4, 2025, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. Indemnifications As permitted under Delaware law, and as set forth in the Company’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and its Amended and Restated Bylaws, the Company indemnifies its directors, executive officers, other officers, employees and other agents for certain events or occurrences that may arise while in such capacity. In addition, agreements entered into by the Company may include indemnification provisions that may subject the Company to costs and damages in the event of a claim against an indemnified third party. ​ The maximum potential future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnifications is unlimited; however, the Company has insurance policies and indemnification agreements that may limit its exposure and may enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. Assuming the applicability of coverage, the willingness of the insurer or partner to assume coverage, and subject to certain retention, loss limits and other policy provisions, the Company believes that it is not probable that any obligations under this indemnification would be material, or in excess of any recorded accruals. ​ No assurances can be given that the covering insurers will not attempt to dispute the validity, applicability, or amount of coverage without expensive litigation against these insurers, in which case the Company may incur substantial liabilities as a result of these indemnification obligations. ​ Third-Party Payer Reimbursement Audits From time to time, the Company receives recoupment requests from third-party payers for alleged overpayments. The Company disagrees with the contentions of pending requests and/or has recorded an estimated reserve for the alleged overpayments if probable and estimable. ​ Contractual Commitments The following table sets forth the material contractual commitments as of June 30, 2025:
​ | ​ | ​ | ​ | ​
Party | Commitments | ​ | Expiry Date
​ | (in thousands) | ​ | ​
Laboratory instruments supplier | $ | 23,495 | ​ | December 2027
Material suppliers | ​ | 80,831 | ​ | December 2026
Application service providers | ​ | 5,685 | ​ | May 2028
Cloud platform service provider | ​ | 27,430 | ​ | December 2028
Other material suppliers | ​ | 39,272 | ​ | Various
Total | $ | 176,713 | ​ | ​
​ During November 2024, the Company entered into an agreement to acquire clinical samples and data for oncology development. As of June 30, 2025, the Company has paid $14.0 million in cash, and is obligated to pay an additional $6.0 million, which is included in commitments above. An additional $50.0 million in potential payments owed to the third-party vendor, not included above, will depend on whether certain compliance approvals are obtained and commercial volume milestones are achieved.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration