XML 26 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.25.1
Commitments and Contingencies
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2025
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; 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 March 31, 2025, the carrying value of the right-of-use asset was $26.4 million. The related current and non-current liabilities as of March 31, 2025 were $6.2 million and $24.1 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.
The following table summarizes the lease cost for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024 (in thousands):
Three Months Ended March 31,
20252024
Operating lease cost$1,827 $1,971 
Total lease cost$1,827 $1,971 

March 31, 2025December 31, 2024
Other information:
Weighted-average remaining lease term - Operating leases (in years)
4.694.61
Weighted-average discount rate - Operating leases (%)
7.0 %7.1 %

Maturities of operating lease liabilities as of March 31, 2025 are as follows (in thousands):
Years Ending December 31,Operating Leases
Remainder of 2025$5,929 
20267,841 
20278,167 
20287,492 
20292,500 
Thereafter3,402 
Total lease payments35,331 
Less imputed interest5,054 
Present value of future minimum lease payments30,277 
Less operating lease liability, current portion6,205 
Operating lease liability, long-term portion$24,072 

As of March 31, 2025, the Company's leases had remaining terms of 0.08 years to 7.84 years, some of which include options to extend the lease term.
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 supplemental cash flow information related to leases for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024 (in thousands):
Three Months Ended March 31,
20252024
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities
Operating cash flows used for operating leases$1,494 $1,361 
Royalty Commitments
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
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
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 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. In August 2023, the Court issued an injunction prohibiting Natera from making the claims the jury previously found to be false advertising. Both parties appealed. On October 8, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded the case to make additional findings. On December 23, 2024, the Court issued an order concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings of falsity on eight advertisements by Natera. Following the decision, the parties submitted additional briefing to the Third Circuit. The Company did not record a receivable or a gain from the judgment as the amount has not yet been realized.
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 September 11, 2024, the Federal Circuit denied that motion.
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. Following trial, Natera moved for an injunction on the Company's prior AlloSure process and the parties engaged in motion practice regarding the jury's verdict and discovery as to whether the Company's current AlloSure process infringes Natera's U.S. Patent 11,111,544. On September 11, 2024, Natera informed the Court that it was abandoning claims of
ongoing infringement. On January 3, 2025, the Court issued an order denying Natera's motion to set aside the jury’s finding that the Company did not infringe Natera's U.S. Patent 10,655,180. On February 24, 2025, the Court issued an order concluding that Natera's U.S. Patents 11,111,544 and 10,655,180 were invalid for lack of written description, thereby overturning the jury verdict. On February 25, 2025, the Court issued an order denying Natera's motion for an injunction as moot. Natera has appealed the Court's invalidation of the three patents it asserted against CareDx. 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. In addition, Natera's U.S. Patent 11,111,544 is also subject to a pending ex parte reexamination before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). On February 14, 2025, a PTO examiner issued a non-final Office action rejecting Claims 21, 26, and 27 of the patent, the claims CareDx was found to have infringed in the litigation. Natera now has a right to respond to this Office action and there is no guarantee that these Claims will ultimately be rejected. After the jury finding, the Company recognized the damages of $96.3 million as other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2023 as the loss was probable and reasonably estimable at that time. After the Court order overturned the jury finding, the Company derecognized the $96.3 million as of December 31, 2024 as the Company concluded that the loss was no longer probable. It is reasonably possible that the Company may not prevail if the case is appealed, in which case the range of loss could be up to the jury awarded amount of $96.3 million plus potential interest.
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 by the DOJ regarding certain business practices related to the Company’s kidney testing and phlebotomy services, and a subpoena from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (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.
In a court document unsealed on October 7, 2024, the DOJ notified the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York that it was declining to intervene in a qui tam action filed against the Company by a former employee that served as the basis for the CID. Accordingly, CareDx understands that the DOJ has closed its investigation of the Company with no finding of wrongdoing. On April 8, 2025, the private plaintiff who originally filed the qui tam action in 2021 (the “relator”) filed an amended complaint on the public docket. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Company’s pre-motion to dismiss conference letter is due April 30, 2025, and the relator’s opposition letter is due on May 15, 2025. Subsequently, the Court will order a briefing schedule on the Company’s anticipated motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company denies the allegations in the qui tam action and intends to vigorously defend itself.
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. Although the Company remains committed to compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, it cannot predict the outcome of, or any other requests or investigations that may arise in the future.
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 "Securities Class Action"). 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.
Following multiple rounds of briefing and amendments to the complaint, on October 18, 2024, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which again alleges that the Company and the individual defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The third amended complaint reiterates many of the same factual allegations as in prior
complaints, but purports to add new allegations based on, among other things, a recently unsealed qui tam action filed by a former employee. On November 15, 2024 the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and on December 13, 2024, plaintiffs filed an opposition brief. On January 10, 2025, defendants filed their reply brief and a hearing was held on January 28, 2025. On February 18, 2025, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The case has now entered discovery.
On April 1, 2025, a mediation was held between the parties to the Securities Class Action with the assistance of Phillips ADR Enterprises. No settlement was reached.
On April 18, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order certifying the matter as a class action, appointing plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Saxena White P.A. as class counsel. The opposition to plaintiffs’ motion is due May 16, 2025, plaintiffs’ reply is due May 30, 2025, and a class certification hearing is scheduled for June 17, 2025.
On April 22, 2025, the parties in the Securities Class Action reached an agreement-in-principle to resolve the Securities Class Action under which the Company would pay or cause to be paid a settlement payment of approximately $20.25 million. The agreement-in-principle is subject to the execution of a definitive stipulation of settlement and to Court approval. The Company has recorded the settlement payment obligation of approximately $20.25 million as accrued litigation settlement expense and also recorded approximately $14.9 million in expected insurance proceeds as other receivables on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2025. The Company recorded a net litigation settlement expense of approximately $5.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025 as it has reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the Securities Class Action but there is no guarantee that the agreement-in-principle will be consummated or approved by the Court.
Derivative Actions

On February 26, 2025, the plaintiffs in a previously-dismissed consolidated derivative action initiated a new action, captioned Edelman v. Bickerstaff, 3:25-c-02036 (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 26, 2025), purporting to reinstate their claims and updating and amending their prior complaint (the "Edelman Derivative Action"). The Edelman Derivative Action asserts claims 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 alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty and various state and federal claims based on the factual allegations of the Securities Class Action.
On March 19, 2025, the parties to the Edelman Derivative Action and the Securities Action filed an administrative motion to consider whether the Edelman Derivative Action should be related to the Securities Class Action. On April 1, 2025, the Court granted the motion.
On April 1, 2025, a mediation was held between the parties to the Edelman Derivative Action with the assistance of Phillips ADR Enterprises. No settlement was reached.
On April 10, 2025, the Court held an Initial Case Management Conference in the Edelman Derivative Action and thereafter issued a Case Management and Scheduling Order setting a trial date of July 19, 2027, among other deadlines.
On April 21, 2025, plaintiffs in the Edelman Derivative Action submitted a letter motion to the Court seeking to have the Court lift the discovery stay provided by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 (the “PSLRA”). On April 23, 2025, CareDx submitted a brief in opposition.
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 March 10, 2025, 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 the same day. On April 1, 2025, a mediation was held between the parties to the Burns Derivative Action with the assistance of Phillips ADR Enterprises. No settlement was reached.
The Company intends to defend itself 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 has not recorded any liabilities for these suits.
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. On June 4, 2024, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo entered an order granting a motion for summary judgment by the insurers. The Company is currently pursuing an appeal of the matter. 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.