XML 26 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.2

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Leases The Company leases its operating and office facilities for various terms under long-term, non-cancelable operating lease agreements in Brisbane, California; Columbus, Ohio; West Chester, Pennsylvania; Flowood, Mississippi; Gaithersburg, Maryland; Omaha, Nebraska; Fremantle, Australia; and Stockholm, Sweden. The Company’s facility leases expire at various dates through 2033. In the normal course of business, it is expected that these leases will be renewed or replaced by leases on other properties. As of June 30, 2024, the carrying value of the ROU asset was $27.2 million. The related current and non-current liabilities as of June 30, 2024 were $6.1 million and $25.4 million, respectively. The current and non-current lease liabilities are included in accrued and other current liabilities and operating lease liability, less current portion, respectively, in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Effective March 2024, the Company entered into a sublease agreement with a sub-lessee (a third-party) for office space with a six-year term, commencing on May 1, 2024, for a total of $2.6 million base rent for the duration of the contract. The following table summarizes the lease cost for the three and six months ended June 30, 2024 and 2023 (in thousands):
| Three Months Ended June 30, |  | Six Months Ended June 30,
| 2024 |  | 2023 |  | 2024 |  | 2023
Operating lease cost | $ | 1,965 |  |  | $ | 1,972 |  |  | $ | 3,936 |  |  | $ | 3,955 |
Total lease cost | $ | 1,965 |  |  | $ | 1,972 |  |  | $ | 3,936 |  |  | $ | 3,955 |
| June 30, 2024 |  | December 31, 2023 |  |
Other information: |  |  |  |  |
Weighted-average remaining lease term - Operating leases (in years) | 5.01 |  | 5.43 |  |
Weighted-average discount rate - Operating leases (%) | 7.1 | % |  | 7.1 | % |  |
Maturities of operating lease liabilities as of June 30, 2024 are as follows (in thousands):
Years Ending December 31, |  |  |  | Operating Leases
Remainder of 2024 |  |  |  | $ | 4,010 |
2025 |  |  |  | 7,929 |
2026 |  |  |  | 7,164 |
2027 |  |  |  | 7,274 |
2028 |  |  |  | 6,599 |
Thereafter |  |  |  | 4,115 |
Total lease payments |  |  |  | 37,091 |
Less imputed interest |  |  |  | 5,643 |
Present value of future minimum lease payments |  |  |  | 31,448 |
Less operating lease liability, current portion |  |  |  | 6,062 |
Operating lease liability, less current portion |  |  |  | $ | 25,386 |
The following table summarizes the supplemental cash flow information related to leases for the three and six months ended June 30, 2024 and 2023 (in thousands):
| Three Months Ended June 30, |  | Six Months Ended June 30,
| 2024 |  | 2023 |  | 2024 |  | 2023
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Operating cash flows used for operating leases | $ | 1,468 |  |  | $ | 1,366 |  |  | $ | 2,829 |  |  | $ | 2,699 |
Royalty Commitments The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”) In June 2014, the Company entered into a license agreement with Stanford (the “Stanford License”), which granted the Company an exclusive license to a patent relating to the diagnosis of rejection in organ transplant recipients using dd-cfDNA. Under the terms of the Stanford License, the Company is required to pay an annual license maintenance fee, six milestone payments and royalties in the low single digits of net sales of products incorporating the licensed technology. In March 2023, the Stanford License agreement was amended, which reduced the maximum royalty rate to a lower rate at which the Company may be liable to Stanford effective from April 2022 and also provided that the Company would seek a review from the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Review”). During the pendency of the Review, certain of the Company’s licensing payment and reporting obligations to Stanford with respect to licensed products sold in the U.S. were suspended. As a result, the Company reversed the excess liability in March 2023. In May 2023, the Company submitted a petition of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court for consideration of the patent infringement suit and in October 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear this patent infringement suit. As the Review is complete and the Company's petition for review was denied, the Stanford License automatically terminated, and in December 2023, the Company paid Stanford certain past royalties at a reduced rate that were previously suspended within 90 days of the termination. There was no outstanding obligation with Stanford as of June 30, 2024. Illumina On May 4, 2018, the Company entered into a license agreement with Illumina, Inc. (the “Illumina Agreement”). The Illumina Agreement requires the Company to pay royalties in the mid-single to low-double digits on sales of products covered by the Illumina Agreement. Other Royalty Commitment Effective as of August 2023, the Company entered into a license agreement with a university institution (the "University Agreement"). The University Agreement requires the Company to pay royalties in the low single digits on sales of products covered by the University Agreement. Other Commitments Pursuant to the Illumina Agreement, the Company has agreed to minimum purchase commitments of finished products and raw materials from Illumina, Inc. Effective as of July 2023, the Company entered into a license and collaboration agreement with a private entity pursuant to which the Company was granted an irrevocable, non-transferable right to commercialize its proprietary software, iBox, for the predictive analysis of post-transplantation kidney allograft loss in the field of transplantation for a period of four years with exclusive rights in the United States. The Company will share an agreed-upon percentage of revenue with the private entity, if and when revenues are generated from iBox. Litigation and Indemnification Obligations From time to time, the Company may become involved in litigation and other legal actions. The Company estimates the range of liability related to any pending litigation where the amount and range of loss can be estimated. The Company records its best estimate of a loss when the loss is considered probable. Where a liability is probable and there is a range of estimated loss with no best estimate in the range, the Company records a charge equal to at least the minimum estimated liability for a loss contingency when both of the following conditions are met: (i) information available prior to issuance of the condensed consolidated financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability had been incurred at the date of the condensed consolidated financial statements, and (ii) the range of loss can be reasonably estimated. Natera Inc. In response to the Company’s false advertising suit filed against Natera Inc. (“Natera”) on April 10, 2019, Natera filed a counterclaim against the Company on February 18, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) alleging the Company made false and misleading claims about the performance capabilities of AlloSure. The suit seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary relief. On September 30, 2020, Natera requested leave of Court to amend its counterclaims to include additional allegations regarding purportedly false claims the Company made with respect to AlloSure, and the Court granted Natera’s request. The trial commenced on March 7, 2022 and concluded on March 14, 2022, with the jury finding that Natera violated the Lanham Act by falsely advertising the scientific performance of its Prospera transplant test and awarding the Company $44.9 million in damages, comprised of $21.2 million in compensatory damages and $23.7 million in punitive damages. In July 2023, the Court upheld and reaffirmed the March 2022 jury verdict but did not uphold the monetary damages awarded by the jury, which the Company intends to appeal. In August 2023, the Court issued an injunction prohibiting Natera from making the claims the jury previously found to be false advertising. The case is now on appeal. On July 19, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court’s judgment dismissing the Company’s patent infringement suit against Natera. In May 2023, the Company submitted a petition of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court for consideration of the patent infringement suit and in October 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the suit. In addition, Natera filed suit against the Company on January 13, 2020, in the Court alleging, among other things, that AlloSure infringes Natera’s U.S. Patent 10,526,658. This case was consolidated with the Company’s patent infringement suit on February 4, 2020. On March 25, 2020, Natera filed an amendment to the suit alleging, among other things, that AlloSure also infringes Natera’s U.S. Patent 10,597,724. The suit seeks a judgment that the Company has infringed Natera’s patents, an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Company from any further infringement of such patents and unspecified damages. On May 13, 2022, Natera filed two new complaints alleging that AlloSure infringes Natera’s U.S. Patents 10,655,180 and 11,111,544. These two cases were consolidated with the patent infringement case on June 15, 2022. On May 17, 2022, Natera agreed to dismiss the case alleging infringement of Natera’s U.S. Patent 10,526,658. On July 6, 2022, the Company moved to dismiss the rest of Natera’s claims. On September 6, 2022, the Company withdrew its motion to dismiss. On December 11, 2023, the Court dismissed the case alleging infringement of Natera's U.S. Patent 10,597,724. Natera appealed that decision. On March 13, 2024, the Federal Circuit dismissed Natera's appeal after Natera failed to file its brief and other required papers. On May 30, 2024, Natera filed a second notice of appeal of the dismissal of U.S. Patent 10,597,724. On June 19, 2024, the Company moved to dismiss Natera’s appeal. On January 26, 2024, following a five-day trial, a jury concluded that the Company did not infringe Natera's U.S. Patent 10,655,180 but did infringe Natera's U.S. Patent 11,111,544. The jury awarded Natera approximately $96.3 million in damages based on sales of AlloSure and AlloSeq between September 2021 and August 2023. Natera's U.S. Patent 11,111,544 expires in September 2026. The Company anticipates continued litigation as to whether its current AlloSure process infringes the patent. Natera has moved for an injunction on the Company’s prior AlloSure process. The Company is opposing the motion. Natera may also move for injunctive relief over the Company’s current AlloSure process if it is found to infringe. The Company is seeking judicial review of the verdict. The Company intends to contest any potential claims of ongoing infringement and any motion for injunctive relief. Natera is also seeking judicial review of the jury’s finding that the Company did not infringe Natera's U.S. Patent 10,655,180. The Company intends to defend these matters vigorously, and believes that the Company has good and substantial defenses to the claims alleged in the suits, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The Company recognized the damages of $96.3 million as other liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023. United States Department of Justice and United States Securities and Exchange Commission Investigations As previously disclosed, in 2021, the Company received a civil investigative demand (“CID”) from the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) requesting that the Company produce certain documents in connection with a False Claims Act investigation being conducted by the DOJ regarding certain business practices related to the Company’s kidney testing and phlebotomy services, and a subpoena from the SEC in relation to an investigation by the SEC in respect of matters similar to those identified in the CID, as well as certain of the Company’s accounting and public reporting practices. By letter dated September 19, 2023, the Company was notified by the staff of the SEC that the SEC has concluded its investigation as to the Company and does not intend to recommend an enforcement action by the SEC against the Company. The notice was provided under the guidelines set out in the final paragraph of Securities Act Release No. 5310. The Company may receive additional requests for information from the DOJ, the SEC, or other regulatory and governmental agencies regarding similar or related subject matters. The Company does not believe that the CID raises any issues regarding the safety or efficacy of any of the Company’s products or services and is cooperating fully with the DOJ investigation. Although the Company remains committed to compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, it cannot predict the outcome of the DOJ investigation or any other requests or investigations that may arise in the future regarding these or other subject matters. Olymbios Matter On April 15, 2022, a complaint was filed by Michael Olymbios against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo (the “San Mateo County Court”). The complaint alleged that the Company failed to pay certain fees and costs required to continue an arbitration proceeding against Dr. Olymbios, and that the Company has defamed Dr. Olymbios. Dr. Olymbios also sought to void restrictive covenants previously agreed to by him in favor of the Company and to recover damages purportedly incurred by Dr. Olymbios. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case. On April 25, 2022, the San Mateo County Court granted the Company’s ex parte application to stay the case and advance the hearing date to June 10, 2022 for the motion to compel arbitration and dismiss. At the June 10, 2022 hearing, the San Mateo County Court found that the decision should be made by the arbitrator, and stayed the case. On July 19, 2022, Dr. Olymbios filed a motion to withdraw from arbitration before Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc., which was denied on August 18, 2022. Both the arbitration and the San Mateo County Court matter were settled in the fourth quarter of 2023 and have been resolved. Securities Class Action On May 23, 2022, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union #295 Pension Fund filed a federal securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, Reginald Seeto, its former President, Chief Executive Officer and member of the Company’s Board of Directors, Ankur Dhingra, its former Chief Financial Officer, Marcel Konrad, its former interim Chief Financial Officer and former Senior Vice President of Finance & Accounting, and Peter Maag, its former President, former Chief Executive Officer, former Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors and current member of the Company’s Board of Directors. The action alleges that the Company and the individual defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action also alleges that the individual defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as controlling persons of the Company. The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs’ costs incurred in the lawsuit, including their reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ witness fees and other costs. On August 25, 2022, the court appointed an investor group led by the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and appointed Saxena White P.A. and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsels. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 28, 2022. On January 27, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss all claims and to strike certain allegations in the amended complaint. On May 24, 2023, the court granted the Company’s motion to strike and motion to dismiss, dismissing all claims against defendants with leave to amend. On June 28, 2023, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the Company, Reginald Seeto, Ankur Dhingra, and Peter Maag. Under a briefing schedule ordered by the court on June 12, 2023, defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to strike the second amended complaint was filed on July 26, 2023, plaintiffs’ opposition was filed on August 30, 2023, and defendants’ reply was filed on September 22, 2023. The court held oral argument on October 31, 2023. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously, and believes that the Company has good and substantial defenses to the claims alleged in the suit, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The Company has not recorded any liabilities for this suit. Derivative Actions On September 21, 2022, Jeffrey Edelman filed a stockholder derivative action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company as nominal defendant and Drs. Seeto and Maag and Mr. Dhingra, and other current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors asserting, among other things, alleged breaches of fiduciary duty against the Individual Defendants based on the factual allegations of the Securities Class Action (the “Edelman Derivative Action”). On December 8, 2022, the court entered an order staying the Edelman Derivative Action subject to certain terms and conditions. On February 7, 2023, Jaysen Stevenson filed a stockholder derivative action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company as nominal defendant and Drs. Seeto and Maag and Mr. Dhingra, and other current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors asserting substantially similar claims (the “Stevenson Derivative Action”). On March 9, 2023, the court consolidated the Edelman Derivative Action and the Stevenson Derivative Action and stayed both actions pursuant to the terms of the stay order in the Edelman Derivative Action. On February 8, 2024, Christian Jacobsen filed a stockholder derivative action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against us as nominal defendant and Dr. Seeto, Mr. Dhingra, Dr. Maag, and other current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors asserting substantially similar claims as the prior-filed derivative actions (the “Jacobsen Derivative Action”). On March 19, 2024, the parties to the Jacobsen Derivative Action and the consolidated Edelman Derivative Action and Stevenson Derivative Action filed a stipulation and proposed order consolidating the Jacobsen Derivative Action with the consolidated Edelman Derivative Action and Stevenson Derivative Action and staying the Jacobsen Derivative Action pursuant to the terms of the stay order in the Edelman Derivative Action. On April 23, 2024, the court entered an order consolidating all three derivative actions (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). The order provides that all previous orders in the Edelman Derivative Action and the Stevenson Derivative Action shall apply to the Jacobsen Derivative Action. On May 16, 2024, the court lifted the stay in the Consolidated Derivative Action. Under a scheduling order entered by the court on May 14, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the Consolidated Derivative Action on July 1, 2024. Pursuant to a briefing notice entered by the court on June 17, 2024, defendants’ deadline to file a motion to dismiss is August 30, 2024, plaintiffs’ deadline to file an opposition brief is October 29, 2024, and defendants’ deadline to file a reply brief is December 2, 2024. A motion hearing is scheduled for January 28, 2025. On March 20, 2024, Edward W. Burns IRA filed a stockholder derivative action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company as nominal defendant and Dr. Seeto, Mr. Dhingra, Dr. Maag, and other current and former members of the Board of Directors (the “Burns Derivative Action”). Prior to filing the complaint, the Company produced documents to the plaintiff in response to a books and records inspection demand made pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The plaintiff purports to incorporate those documents in the complaint. The plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of the Company and engaged in insider trading, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The suit seeks declaratory relief, recovery of alleged damages sustained by the Company as a result of the alleged violations, equitable relief, restitution, and plaintiff’s costs incurred in the lawsuit, including reasonable attorneys’, accountants’, and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses. On April 11, 2024, the court entered an order staying the Burns Derivative Action pursuant to a stipulation filed by the parties. On May 30, 2024, the parties to the Burns Derivative Action filed an amended stipulation and proposed order to continue the stay in that action, which was so-ordered by the court on May 31, 2024. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously, and believes that the Company has good and substantial defenses to the claims alleged in the suit, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The Company has not recorded any liabilities for this suit. Insurance Matter In December 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit against its directors and officers liability insurance carriers in San Mateo County Superior Court. The Company seeks a declaration that costs and fees incurred by the Company in responding to governmental investigatory requests are covered under its policies. The Company also asserts breach of contract against its primary insurer Great American Insurance Company for denying the claim. The policies provide up to $15 million in coverage limits. The Company intends to vigorously pursue its claims, and believes it has good and substantial support for its claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail in these claims. On May 17, 2024, the Superior Court entered a decision finding against the Company. The Company is considering its appellate options.

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