XML 35 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.0.1

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 29, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
9. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
We are involved in various lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of business, including actions with respect to intellectual property, employment, and contractual matters. In connection with these matters, we assess, on a regular basis, the probability and range of possible loss based on the developments in these matters. A liability is recorded in the consolidated financial statements if it is believed to be probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable and unfavorable resolutions could occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. We regularly review outstanding legal matters to determine the adequacy of the liabilities accrued and related disclosures in consideration of many factors, which include, but are not limited to, past history, scientific and other evidence, and the specifics and status of each matter. We may change our estimates if our assessment of the various factors changes and the amount of ultimate loss may differ from our estimates, resulting in a material effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and/or cash flows. Acquisition of GRAIL As of September 6, 2024, all previously disclosed regulatory proceedings in the United States and European Union related to our acquisition of GRAIL have been resolved (as further described below). On April 19, 2021, the European Commission sought and subsequently accepted a request for a referral of the GRAIL acquisition for European Union merger review, submitted by a Member State of the European Union (France), and joined by several other EEA Member States (Belgium, Greece, Iceland, the Netherlands and Norway), under Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the EU Merger Regulation). The European Commission had never solicited referrals to take jurisdiction over an acquisition of a U.S. company that had no revenue in Europe. On April 28, 2021, we filed an action in the General Court of the European Union (the EU General Court) asking for annulment of the European Commission’s assertion of jurisdiction to review the acquisition under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation, as the acquisition does not meet the jurisdictional criteria under the EU Merger Regulation or under the national merger control laws of any Member State of the European Union. On July 13, 2022, the EU General Court reached a decision in favor of the European Commission, holding that the European Commission has jurisdiction under the EU Merger Regulation to review the acquisition. On September 22, 2022, we filed an appeal in the Court of Justice of the European Union (the EU Court of Justice) asking for annulment of the EU General Court’s judgment. On October 12, 2023, the European Commission adopted a decision requiring Illumina to unwind its acquisition of GRAIL (the EC Divestment Decision). On December 17, 2023, we announced that we would divest GRAIL. On June 24, 2024, we completed the separation (the Spin-Off) of GRAIL into a separate, independent publicly traded company through the distribution of approximately 85.5% of the outstanding GRAIL common stock to Illumina stockholders on a pro rata basis. On September 3, 2024, the EU Court of Justice ruled in our favor, confirming that the European Commission had unlawfully asserted jurisdiction over our acquisition of GRAIL, and hence annulling the EU General Court’s judgment and the European Commission’s decisions accepting the referral of the GRAIL acquisition for EU merger review (the EU Court of Justice Judgment). The EU Court of Justice Judgment concludes these proceedings and is not subject to further appeals. In view of this judgment, on September 6, 2024, the European Commission issued a decision (the Withdrawal Decision) withdrawing all of its prior decisions, including (1) its July 22, 2021 decision opening an investigation of Illumina’s proposed acquisition of GRAIL, (2) its September 6, 2022 decision prohibiting Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL, (3) its October 29, 2021 and October 28, 2022 decisions concerning interim measures, (4) the EC Divestment Decision, and (5) its July 12, 2023 decision fining Illumina €432 million and GRAIL for closing the acquisition before approval by the European Commission. The Withdrawal Decision resolves all ongoing regulatory proceedings in the European Union. The European Commission has also been ordered to pay Illumina’s costs incurred in connection with the GRAIL-related proceedings before the EU Court of Justice and the EU General Court. As a result of the European Commission withdrawing its previously imposed fine, we recognized a net gain of $481 million in Q3 2024. We recognized a gain of $489 million in operating expense, resulting from reversal of the accrued fine and related accrued interest, offset by a loss of $8 million, recognized in other expense, net, for the reversal of associated foreign currency fluctuations. The fine accrued interest at a rate of 5.5% per annum while it was outstanding. The guarantees we provided in October 2023 to satisfy the obligation in lieu of cash payment while we appealed the European Commission’s jurisdictional and fine decisions are no longer outstanding. On August 15, 2024, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission dismissed the previously disclosed administrative complaint in light of the completion of the Spin-Off. SEC Inquiry Letter In July 2023, we were informed that the staff of the SEC was conducting an investigation relating to Illumina and was requesting documents and communications primarily related to Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL and certain statements and disclosures concerning GRAIL, its products and its acquisition, and related to the conduct and compensation of certain members of Illumina and GRAIL management, among other things. Illumina is cooperating with the SEC in this investigation. Shareholder Derivative Complaints On October 17, 2023, a stockholder derivative and class action complaint captioned Icahn Partners LP, et al. v. deSouza, et al., purportedly brought on behalf of Illumina and public holders of Illumina’s common stock, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain current and former directors (including our former Chief Executive Officer). We are named as a nominal defendant in the complaint. The lawsuit alleges the named directors breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly causing Illumina to unlawfully close the GRAIL acquisition, concealing material facts related to the GRAIL acquisition and making inadequate disclosures. Before the filing of the complaint, the purported stockholders did not make a demand that our Board of Directors pursue the claims asserted therein. The complaint seeks damages, costs and expenses, including attorney fees, the certification and consolidation of a putative class, the issuance of amended disclosures, the removal of conflicted directors and declaratory and other equitable relief. On November 1, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which has not yet been briefed. On the same day, Illumina-joined by the director defendants-moved to strike portions of the complaint that contain improperly included confidential and privileged information. On January 16, 2024, the Court granted the motion to strike. On December 5, 2023, the plaintiffs moved to expedite the proceedings with respect to their direct claims. The director defendants opposed that motion and Illumina joined their opposition. On January 19, 2024, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to expedite. On January 23, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reargument of the Court’s January 16 opinion, which the Court denied on February 19, 2024. On February 29, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an application to the trial court to certify the orders granting the motion to strike and denying the motion for reargument for interlocutory appeal. The Court refused the application on March 20, 2024. On March 14, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an application for interlocutory appeal with the Supreme Court of Delaware, which the Court denied on April 11, 2024. On February 26, 2024, a stockholder derivative complaint captioned City of Omaha Police and Firefighters Retirement System v. deSouza, et al., purportedly brought on behalf of Illumina, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain current and former directors. On April 16, 2024, a stockholder derivative complaint captioned City of Roseville General Employees Retirement System, et al. v. deSouza, et al., purportedly brought on behalf of Illumina, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain current and former directors and officers. On August 16, 2024, a stockholder derivative complaint captioned Thomas P. DiNapoli v. John Thompson et al., purportedly brought on behalf of Illumina, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain current and former directors. We are named as a nominal defendant in the complaints. The lawsuits allege the named directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly causing Illumina to unlawfully close the GRAIL acquisition. The stockholders previously made requests to inspect certain books and records under Delaware law, and they purport to base their complaint in part on documents obtained from Illumina in response to those requests. Before the filing of the complaint, the purported stockholders did not make a demand that our Board of Directors pursue the claim asserted therein. The complaints seek damages against the individual defendants, costs and expenses, including attorney fees and other equitable relief. On March 26, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit filed by City of Omaha Police and Firefighters Retirement System. The motion has not yet been briefed. On May 16, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit filed by City of Roseville General Employees Retirement System, et al. The motion has not yet been briefed. On September 16, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit filed by Thomas DiNapoli. The motion has not yet been briefed. On December 23, 2024, a stockholder derivative complaint captioned The Pavers and Road Builders Benefit Funds v. deSouza, et al., purportedly brought on behalf of Illumina, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain current and former directors and officers. Like the complaints described above, the lawsuits allege the named directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly causing Illumina to unlawfully close the GRAIL acquisition. The stockholder previously made requests to inspect certain books and records under Delaware law and litigated a books and records action against the Company (described below), and it purports to base its complaint in part on documents obtained from Illumina in response to those requests and that litigation. Before the filing of the complaint, the purported stockholder did not make a demand that our Board of Directors pursue the claim asserted therein. The complaint seeks damages against the individual defendants and other equitable relief. In light of the fact that these lawsuits are in an early stage, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the suits. We deny the allegations in the complaints and intend to vigorously defend the litigations. On February 21, 2024, a stockholder derivative complaint captioned Elaine Wang, et al. v. deSouza, et al., purportedly brought on behalf of the Company was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (District of Delaware) against certain current and former directors. The Company was named as a nominal defendant in the complaint. The lawsuit alleged that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly causing the Company to unlawfully close the GRAIL acquisition. Before the filing of the complaint, the purported stockholder did not make a demand that our Board of Directors pursue the asserted claims therein. The complaint sought, among other things, restitution to the Company for the alleged damages caused by the named defendants. On March 8, 2024, a stockholder derivative complaint captioned Michael Warner, et al. v. deSouza, et al., purportedly brought on behalf of Illumina was also filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against certain current and former directors. We were named as a nominal defendant in the complaint. The lawsuit alleged that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly causing us to unlawfully close the GRAIL acquisition. Before the filing of the complaint, the purported stockholder did not make a demand that our Board of Directors pursue the asserted claims therein. The complaint sought, among other things, restitution to Illumina for the alleged damages caused by the named defendants. On March 28, 2024, the parties submitted a Joint Motion to Transfer the lawsuit to the District of Delaware, which the Court granted on March 29, 2024, and the Court transferred the lawsuit to the District of Delaware on the same day. Elaine Wang, et al. v. deSouza, et al. and Michael Warner, et al. v. deSouza, et al. were voluntarily dismissed on April 29, 2024, and May 1, 2024, respectively. On May 1, 2024, Michael Warner sent a litigation demand to our Board of Directors requesting that a civil action for monetary damages be brought by the Board of Directors on behalf of Illumina against officers and directors involved with the GRAIL acquisition. On July 30, 2024, the Board unanimously determined that it was in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders to defer a final decision on the demand given, among other things, the pending stockholder lawsuits described herein and the similarity of issues raised in the demand and those lawsuits. Our Board will monitor the stockholder lawsuits and revisit the demand as warranted as the lawsuits progress. On June 3, 2024, Elaine Wang made requests to inspect certain books and records under Delaware law and the Company sent a production of documents in response to that demand. On August 21, 2024, an additional stockholder, Jane Davidson, sent a litigation demand to our Board of Directors requesting that a civil action for breaches of fiduciary duty, indemnification, contribution and other appropriate claims be brought by the Board of Directors on behalf of Illumina against officers and directors involved with the GRAIL acquisition. On October 29, 2024, the Board unanimously determined that it was in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders to defer a final decision on the demand given, among other things, the pending stockholder lawsuits described herein and the similarity of issues raised in the demand and those lawsuits. Our Board will monitor the stockholder lawsuits and revisit the demand as warranted as the lawsuits progress. Securities Class Actions Federal Securities Class Actions. On November 11, 2023, the first of three securities class action complaints was filed against Illumina and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The first-filed case is captioned Kangas v. Illumina, Inc. et al., the second-filed case is captioned Roy v. Illumina, Inc. et al., and the third-filed case is captioned Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension & Relief Fund v. Illumina, Inc. et al. (collectively, the Actions). The complaints generally allege, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts relating to Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On January 9, 2024, four movants filed motions to consolidate the Actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff (Lead Plaintiff Motions). On April 11, 2024, the Court issued an order consolidating the Actions into a single action (captioned in re Illumina, Inc. Securities Litigation No. 23-cv-2082-LL-MMP), and appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, UI BVK Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, and ACATIS Investment Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs (the Lead Plaintiffs). On June 21, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint. The complaint alleges that Illumina and GRAIL and certain of their current and former directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL. On September 13, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint. On November 12, 2024, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. On December 20, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. The defendants’ final reply brief was filed on February 3, 2025. No hearing date has been set. State Securities Class Actions. On February 2, 2024, the first of two additional securities class actions was filed against Illumina, certain of its officers and directors, and several other individuals and entities in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, captioned Loren Scott Mar v. Illumina, et al. and Scott Zerzanek v. Illumina, Inc. et al. Both complaints generally allege, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts in the November 2020 and February 2021 registration statements and prospectus relating to Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On March 29, 2024, the parties to the actions filed a Joint Stipulation to Consolidate the actions and to appoint co-lead counsel for plaintiffs, which the Court granted on April 5, 2024. On August 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint. On September 6, 2024, Illumina and the other named defendants filed a motion to stay the litigation. On October 4, 2024, the plaintiffs opposed the motion to stay. At a hearing held on December 6, 2024, the Court declined to stay the litigation. The defendants’ demurrer is due February 28, 2025. Plaintiffs’ oppositions to the demurrer are due April 30, 2025, and defendants’ final reply briefs are due May 30, 2025. A hearing is set for June 20, 2025. In light of the fact that the lawsuits are in an early stage, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the suits. We deny the allegations in the complaints and intend to vigorously defend the litigation. DOJ Civil Investigative Demand On January 18, 2024, we received a civil investigative demand (CID) from the U.S. Department of Justice, requiring production of certain documents and information in the course of a False Claims Act investigation to determine whether there is or has been a violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729. The False Claims Act investigation concerns allegations that the Company caused the submission of false claims to Medicare and other federal government programs because it misrepresented its compliance with cybersecurity requirements to the Food and Drug Administration and other federal agencies that purchase its devices. The Company is cooperating with the government. Books and Records Action On February 14, 2024, a stockholder filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Pavers and Road Builders Benefit Funds v. Illumina, Inc. seeking to inspect certain books and records related to the GRAIL transaction, including certain materials and minutes from meetings of our Board of Directors, which have been withheld because the Company contends they are non-responsive to the request or subject to the attorney-client privilege. Illumina previously provided documents to the stockholder in response to a demand made by letter under Delaware law, but the stockholder seeks additional and unredacted materials through this action. On March 11, 2024, Illumina filed an answer to the complaint, denying that the stockholder was entitled to inspection. We deny that the stockholder is entitled to review the documents and intend to vigorously defend the litigation. The trial took place on June 7, 2024. On July 16, 2024, the Court issued a decision requiring the Company to produce certain additional documents to plaintiff. On July 26, 2024, the stockholder filed a motion seeking in camera review of certain documents that the Company maintains are not subject to the Court’s July 16, 2024 order to produce documents. The Court granted the motion on August 19, 2024, and the Company filed the documents for in camera review on August 29, 2024. On October 7, 2024, the Court ruled that the Company need not produce the documents subject to the motion for in camera review because they are privileged under the attorney opinion work product doctrine. On December 11, 2024, the Court entered its final order and judgment. On December 23, 2024, the plaintiff in this action filed a derivative complaint, described above. BGI Genomics Co. Ltd. and its Affiliates As previously disclosed, we were engaged in litigation in various U.S. jurisdictions with BGI Genomics Co. Ltd (BGI) and certain of its affiliates, including Complete Genomics, Inc. (CGI) since June of 2019. On July 14, 2022, we entered into a Settlement and License Agreement with BGI and CGI (the Agreement). Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, we agreed to pay CGI a one time payment of $325 million. We allocated the $325 million payment on a relative fair value basis, resulting in $180 million capitalized as an intangible asset in 2022 for the value of the license, which is amortized over a period of 6.5 years on a straight-line basis, $150 million allocated to the release of past damages claimed, and a $5 million gain for damages awarded to us. The fair value of the license was estimated using a discounted cash flow model, which included assumptions for projected revenues covered by the license, an estimated royalty rate and a discount rate. The fair value of the past damages claimed was estimated based on applicable historical revenues and an estimated royalty rate. These inputs represent a Level 3 measurement because they are supported by little or no market activity and reflect our own assumptions in measuring fair value.

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 legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration