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

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 29, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
8. 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 condensed 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. 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. 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. 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. On September 16, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit filed by Thomas DiNapoli. On March 14, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the DiNapoli lawsuit and the court entered an order dismissing that action. 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. On January 21, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit filed by The Pavers and Road Builders Benefit Funds. On March 27, 2025, the parties in the Icahn Partners LP, et al. v. deSouza, et al., City of Omaha Police and Firefighters Retirement System v. deSouza, et al., City of Roseville General Employees Retirement System, et al. v. deSouza, et al. and The Pavers and Road Builders Benefit Funds v. deSouza, et al. Delaware shareholder derivative actions filed a stipulation to consolidate those actions. On April 11, 2025, the parties to the Icahn Partners LP, et al. v. deSouza, et al. action informed the court that they had agreed to a settlement in principle of that action. The proposed settlement involves a release of claims and no payment by any party. On April 17, 2025, the court held a teleconference on the consolidated action, during which it directed the parties to (i) refile the consolidation stipulation once the Icahn Partners LP, et al. v. deSouza, et al. settlement was finalized and (ii) proceed with the briefing on the motion to dismiss the operative complaint in the consolidated action, which is the complaint filed in The Pavers and Road Builders Benefit Funds v. deSouza, et al. On June 2, 2025, (i) Alex Aravanis filed his opening brief in support of his motion to dismiss, (ii) Francis deSouza, John W. Thompson, Frances Arnold, Caroline Dorsa, Robert Epstein, Scott Gottlieb, Gary Guthart, Philip Schiller and Susan Siegel (Director Defendants) filed their opening brief in support of their motion to dismiss and (iii) Illumina filed a joinder to the Director Defendants’ motion. On June 3, 2025, the Director Defendants filed a corrected version of their brief, which Illumina joined. On July 17, 2025, the court granted a stipulation filed by the parties giving plaintiffs until August 8, 2025 to file an amended complaint. Pursuant to the stipulation, any opening brief to dismiss or answer is due by October 3, 2025, any answering brief is due by November 20, 2025, any reply brief is due by December 19, 2025 and any hearing on the motion to dismiss will be held February 13, 2026. 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 May 1, 2024, stockholder 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 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. On February 28, 2025, the defendants filed demurrers seeking dismissal of the litigation. On April 30, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their oppositions to the demurrers. On May 30, 2025, defendants filed their reply briefs. On June 20, 2025, the Court held an initial hearing on the demurrers and set a hearing for further argument on August 29, 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. On July 22, 2025, while denying the allegations and any liability, and to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice resolving the allegations. Under the settlement agreement, the Company will make a one-time payment of $9.8 million plus interest in exchange for a release from civil monetary claims related to the sale of certain sequencing instruments sold to federal agencies between 2016 and 2023.

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