XML 26 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.26.1
Commitments and Contingencies
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
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 at various locations which include Brisbane, California; 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, 2026, the carrying value of the right-of-use asset was $21.2 million. The related current and non-current lease liabilities as of March 31, 2026 were $6.7 million and $17.8 million, respectively. The current and non-current lease liabilities are included in accrued and other liabilities and operating lease liabilities, less current portion, respectively, in the condensed consolidated balance sheets.
The following table summarizes the lease cost for the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025 (in thousands):
Three Months Ended March 31,
20262025
Operating lease cost$1,833 $1,827 

March 31, 2026December 31, 2025
Other information:
Weighted-average remaining lease term - Operating leases (in years)
3.824.02
Weighted-average discount rate - Operating leases (%)
7.0 %7.0 %
Maturities of operating lease liabilities as of March 31, 2026 are as follows (in thousands):
Years Ending December 31,Operating Leases
Remainder of 2026$5,905 
20278,212 
20287,537 
20292,545 
20301,732 
Thereafter1,715 
Total lease payments27,646 
Less imputed interest3,148 
Present value of future minimum lease payments24,498 
Less operating lease liability, current portion(6,661)
Operating lease liability, long-term portion$17,837 
As of March 31, 2026, the Company's leases had remaining terms of 0.17 years to 6.84 years, some of which include options to extend the lease term.
The following table summarizes the supplemental cash flow information related to leases for the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025 (in thousands):
Three Months Ended March 31,
20262025
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities
Operating cash flows used for operating leases$1,553 $1,494 
Royalty Commitments
From time to time, the Company enters into license agreements related to certain technologies used in its products. These agreements generally require the Company to pay sales-based royalties on net sales of products covered by the applicable
licenses. Royalty rates under these agreements range from the low single digits to the low double digits on sales of products covered by such agreements.
Other Commitments
Effective as of July 2023, the Company entered into a license and collaboration agreement with a private entity, or the Collaboration Agreement, 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. Pursuant to the Collaboration Agreement, 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., or 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, or 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. 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 U.S. 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 Court. On August 28, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision affirming the District Court’s findings on both liability and damages. On September 25, 2025, the Company filed a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc of the Court’s damages decision. On October 10, 2025, the Third Circuit denied the petition. On February 9, 2026, the Company filed a petition for Supreme Court review. 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 10,597,724 is currently subject to an ex parte reexamination before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO. On December 17, 2025, a PTO examiner issued a non-final office action rejecting Claims 1 and 4-6 of the patent. Natera's U.S. Patent 11,111,544 was previously subject to an ex parte reexamination before the 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. On July 9, 2025, the PTO issued a reexamination certificate finding that Natera had overcome the prior rejections of the 11,111,544 patent, concluding the reexamination proceeding.
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 Natera continues to pursue the case through appeal, 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, or CID, from the United States Department of Justice, or 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 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, or the Relator, filed an amended complaint on the public docket. On July 16, 2025, the District Court held a conference, at which it set a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss. On October 17, 2025, Relator filed an opposition to the Company’s motion to dismiss, and on October 31, 2025, the Company filed its reply in further support of its motion to dismiss. The Company denies the allegations in the qui tam action and intends to vigorously defend itself. On April 23, 2026, the Relator filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case and the DOJ informed the Court that it consented to dismissal of the action.
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 April 22, 2025, the Company reached an agreement-in-principle to resolve a securities class action (the "Securities Class Action"), under which the Company would pay or cause to be paid a settlement payment of approximately $20.25 million. On December 4, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California provided final approval of the settlement and the Company paid the settlement amount.
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 during the mediation.
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 and a hearing was held on June 10, 2025. On June 12, 2025, the Court issued an order denying plaintiffs’ letter motion to lift the PSLRA’s discovery stay.
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 Company's 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. On June 9, 2025, in accordance with the Court’s March 10, 2025 order, the parties submitted a joint status report, informing the Court that subject to Court approval, the Securities Class Action has been settled and that settlement discussions in the Burns and Edelman Derivative Actions were ongoing.
On July 22, 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case, subject to the negotiation of an agreed-upon attorney fee, and informed the Court. On July 31, 2025, the parties submitted a joint status report, notifying the Court that the parties selected a JAMS mediator to oversee attorney’s fee negotiation.
On September 9, 2025, the parties participated in a mediation session to mediate attorneys’ fees which was unsuccessful. On September 11, 2025, the parties in the Edelman Derivative Action submitted a joint status report notifying the Court that because a request for attorneys’ fees is not evaluated at the preliminary approval stage, plaintiffs intended to file a motion for preliminary approval of the derivative settlement.
On September 26, 2025, the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of compromise, settlement and release resolving and settling, subject to court approval, both the Edelman and Burns Derivative Actions. The same day, plaintiffs in the Edelman Derivative Action filed their unopposed motion for preliminary approval. The deadline to oppose the motion was October 10, 2025 and no opposition was filed. On October 13, 2025, plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition, requesting that the Court enter an order granting the motion for preliminary approval without oral argument.
On October 1, 2025 the parties to the Burns Derivative Action filed a third amended stipulation and proposed order to continue the stay in that action through the pendency of a determination on the proposed settlement in the Edelman Derivative Action. The court entered this stipulated order on October 6, 2025.
On December 9, 2025, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the parties' settlement. On March 31, 2026, with the assistance of a JAMS mediator, the parties agreed to attorney's fees of $0.6 million. The settlement remains subject to the final approval of the Court.