NanoString
On May 6, 2021, we filed suit against NanoString Technologies, Inc. ("NanoString") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that NanoString's GeoMx Digital Spatial Profiler and associated instruments and reagents infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 10,472,669, 10,662,467, 10,961,566, 10,983,113 and 10,996,219 (the "GeoMx Action"). On May 19, 2021, we filed an amended complaint additionally alleging that the GeoMx products infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 11,001,878 and 11,008,607. On May 4, 2022, we filed an amended complaint in the GeoMx Action additionally alleging that the GeoMx products infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,293,917 and withdrawing our claims of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,662,467. We are seeking, among other relief, injunctive relief and unspecified damages (including attorneys' fees) in relation to NanoString's making, using, selling, offering to sell, exporting and/or importing in the United States the GeoMx Digital Spatial Profiler and associated instruments and reagents. NanoString filed its answer to the GeoMx Action on May 18, 2022. A Markman hearing was held on February 17, 2023 and the Court issued its claim construction order on February 28, 2023. On September 7, 2023, the Court issued an order granting our motion for summary judgment that the asserted patents are not invalid for indefiniteness and denying NanoString's motion for summary judgment that the asserted patents are invalid for indefiniteness and lack of written description. On November 17, 2023, a jury found that NanoString willfully infringed the asserted patents and that the asserted patents are valid. The jury awarded us more than $31 million in damages, consisting of approximately $25 million in lost profits and approximately $6 million in royalties. Post-trial motions, including our motions for a permanent injunction, ongoing royalties, enhanced damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest, are pending. NanoString filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. bankruptcy court in Delaware on February 4, 2024, and the Court's consideration of these post-trial motions is currently stayed due to the bankruptcy filing.
On February 28, 2022, we filed a second suit against NanoString in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that NanoString's CosMx Spatial Molecular Imager and associated instruments, reagents and services infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 10,227,639 and 11,021,737 (the "CosMx Action"). On May 12, 2022, we filed an amended complaint in the CosMx Action additionally alleging that the CosMx products additionally infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 11,293,051, 11,293,052 and 11,293,054. NanoString filed its answer to the CosMx Action on May 26, 2022. On March 1, 2023, we filed a second amended complaint additionally alleging that the CosMx products infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,542,554. We are seeking, among other relief, injunctive relief and unspecified damages (including attorneys' fees) in relation to NanoString's making, using, selling, offering to sell, exporting and/or importing in the United States the CosMx Spatial Molecular Imager and associated instruments, reagents and services. NanoString filed its answer to the second amended complaint on March 22, 2023. Discovery is in progress. A Markman hearing was held on January 10, 2024, and the Court issued its claim construction order on February 1, 2024. Trial is scheduled for September 2024. This litigation is currently stayed due to NanoString's bankruptcy filing.
On August 16, 2022, NanoString filed a counterclaim in the CosMx Action alleging that our Visium products infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,377,689 (the "689 patent"). We filed our answer to NanoString's counterclaim in the CosMx Action on August 30, 2022. On November 23, 2022, we moved to sever claims relating to NanoString's assertion of the 689 patent and consolidate those claims with the patent case NanoString filed against us on October 20, 2022 (discussed below). On January 24, 2023, the Court granted our motion.
On May 1, 2023, NanoString filed a motion in the CosMx Action to add antitrust, unfair competition, tort, and contract counterclaims. NanoString seeks, among other relief, injunction relief (including that we grant NanoString a license to the patents that we asserted against NanoString in the CosMx Action) and unspecified damages (including attorneys' fees). On July 10, 2023, the Court denied NanoString's motion for leave to add a contract counterclaim but otherwise granted the motion for leave to amend. On May 24, 2023, NanoString filed a motion to bifurcate its amended counterclaims and a motion for expedited discovery. On June 6, 2023, the Court denied NanoString's motion to bifurcate and granted its motion for expedited discovery. We believe NanoString's claims are meritless and intend to vigorously defend ourselves.
On October 20, 2022, NanoString filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that our Visium products infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,473,142 ("the 142 patent"), a continuation of the 689 patent (the "NanoString Action"). NanoString seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief and unspecified damages (including attorneys' fees) in relation to NanoString's making, using, selling, offering to sell, exporting and/or importing in the United States Visium products and associated instruments, reagents and services. On January 24, 2023, the Court severed NanoString's claims with respect to the 689 patent from the CosMx Action and consolidated those claims with this action. NanoString filed an amended complaint on January 27, 2023. We filed an answer to the NanoString Action on February 10, 2023. Discovery is in progress. A Markman hearing was held on January 10, 2024, and the Court issued its claim construction order on February 1, 2024. Trial is scheduled for December 2024. We believe NanoString's claims in the NanoString Action are meritless and intend to vigorously defend ourselves.
On August 16 and September 25, 2023, we filed petitions for inter partes review ("IPR") of the 689 patent and the 142 patent, respectively. On February 1, 2024, IPR was instituted for the 689 patent. An institution decision for the IPR against the 142 patent is expected in April 2024.
On March 9, 2022, we filed suit in the Munich Regional Court in Germany alleging that NanoString's CosMx Spatial Molecular Imager and associated instruments, reagents and services infringe EP Patent No. 2794928B1 (the "EP 928 patent") (the "Germany CosMx Action"). A hearing on infringement was held on March 23, 2023. On May 17, 2023, the Munich Regional Court found that the CosMx products infringe the EP 928 patent and issued a permanent injunction requiring NanoString to stop selling and supplying CosMx instruments and reagents for RNA detection in Germany. The injunction took effect on June 1, 2023. On May 25, 2023, NanoString filed an appeal of the Germany CosMx Action in the Munich Higher Regional Court. A hearing date has not yet been set for this appeal. On October 30, 2023, NanoString requested that the Higher Regional Court temporarily stay enforcement of the injunction pending the appeal. On December 20, 2023, the Higher Regional Court granted NanoString's request conditioned upon NanoString posting a 2.3 million Euro security deposit. To date, NanoString has not posted this security deposit.
On July 29, 2022, NanoString filed a nullity action with the German Federal Patent Court challenging the validity of the EP 928 patent. On February 10, 2023, the Federal Patent Court issued a preliminary opinion upholding the validity of certain claims of the EP 928 patent directed to in situ analysis. A hearing on validity is scheduled before the Federal Patent Court in May 2024.
On June 1, 2023, we filed requests for preliminary injunctions in the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court ("UPC") alleging that NanoString's CosMx Spatial Molecular Imager and associated instruments, reagents and services for RNA detection infringe the EP 928 patent and EP Patent No. 4108782 (the "EP 782 patent"). Hearings were held for the EP 782 and EP 928 patents on September 5 and September 19, respectively. On September 19, 2023, the UPC granted our request for the EP 782 patent and issued a preliminary injunction requiring NanoString to stop selling and supplying CosMx instruments and reagents for RNA detection in all 17 UPC member states. On October 10, 2023, the UPC denied our preliminary injunction request for the EP 928 patent. On October 2, 2023, NanoString filed an appeal of the preliminary injunction for the EP 782 patent in the UPC Court of Appeals. A hearing was held before the UPC Court of Appeals on December 18, 2023, and a decision is pending.
On August 31 and September 18, 2023 we filed main requests in the Munich Local Division of the UPC alleging that NanoString's CosMx Spatial Molecular Imager and associated instruments, reagents and services for RNA detection infringe the EP 782 and EP 928 patents, respectively. No hearings have yet been set for these main requests.
On July 18, 2023, NanoString filed an opposition in the European Patent Office challenging the validity of the EP 782 patent. No schedule has yet been set for this opposition. On July 27, 2023, NanoString filed a revocation action in the Munich Central Division of the UPC challenging the validity of the EP 928 patent. A hearing in the revocation action is scheduled on April 17, 2024.
On January 30, 2024, NanoString filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,542,554, which is asserted by us against NanoString in the CosMx Action.
The impact of NanoString's bankruptcy filing on our actions against NanoString outside of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware is not yet fully resolved.
Vizgen
On May 3, 2022, we filed suit against Vizgen, Inc. ("Vizgen") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Vizgen's MERSCOPE Platform and workflow and/or Vizgen's Lab Services program, including associated instruments and reagents, infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 11,021,737, 11,293,051, 11,293,052, 11,293,054 and 11,299,767. We seek, among other relief, injunction relief and unspecified damages (including attorneys' fees) in relation to Vizgen's making using, selling, offering to sell, exporting and/or importing in the United States the MERSCOPE Platform and workflow and/or Vizgen's Lab Services program, including associated instruments and reagents. On July 25, 2022, Vizgen filed a motion to dismiss our claims for willful and indirect infringement, which the Court denied on September 19, 2022. Discovery is in progress. A Markman hearing was held on January 10, 2024, and the Court issued its claim construction order on February 1, 2024. Trial is scheduled for October 2024.
On August 30, 2022, Vizgen filed its answer and counterclaims alleging that our Xenium product infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,098,303 (the "303 patent"). Vizgen seeks, among other relief, injunction relief and unspecified damages (including attorneys' fees) in relation to our making, using, selling, offering to sell, exporting and/or importing in the United States Xenium products, including associated instruments and reagents. Vizgen also filed counterclaims alleging that we tortiously interfered with Vizgen's contractual and business relationship with Harvard and that we engaged in unfair practices under Massachusetts state law. On October 27, 2022, we filed a partial answer and motion to dismiss the infringement counterclaim and the tort counterclaims. On February 2, 2023, our motion to dismiss was denied. We believe Vizgen's claims are meritless and intend to vigorously defend ourselves.
On March 15, 2023, we filed an amended complaint additionally alleging that the MERSCOPE Platform and workflow and Vizgen's Lab Services program infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,549,136 and withdrawing our claim of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,293,054. On April 17, 2023, Vizgen filed its answer adding amended counterclaims including antitrust, unfair competition, tort, and contract counterclaims. Vizgen seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief (including that we grant Vizgen a license to the patents that we asserted against Vizgen) and unspecified damages (including attorneys' fees). On May 18, 2023, we filed a motion to dismiss Vizgen's amended counterclaims. On July 10, 2023, the Court granted our motion to dismiss Vizgen's contract counterclaim but otherwise denied our motion to dismiss. We believe Vizgen's claims are meritless and intend to vigorously defend ourselves.
On June 1, 2023, we filed suit in the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC alleging that Vizgen's MERSCOPE products infringe the EP782 patent. We seek, among other relief, injunction relief and unspecified damages (including attorneys' fees) in relation to Vizgen's MERSCOPE products in all 17 UPC member states. A hearing has not yet been set.
On August 30, 2023, we filed a petition for IPR of the 303 patent. An institution decision is expected by March 2023.
Parse
On August 24, 2022, we filed suit against Parse Biosciences, Inc. ("Parse") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Parse's Evercode Whole Transcriptomics products and ATAC-seq products infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 10,155,981 (the "981 patent"), 10,697,013 (the "013 patent"), 10,240,197 (the "197 patent"), 10,150,995, 10,619,207, and 10,738,357. We seek, among other relief, injunction relief and unspecified damages (including attorneys' fees) in relation to Parse's making using, selling, offering to sell, exporting and/or importing in the United States Parse's Evercode Whole Transcriptomics products and ATAC-seq products. On October 17, 2022, Parse filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the asserted claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. The Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on November 22, 2022, and supplemental briefing was submitted on December 15, 2022. On September 14, 2023, the Court denied the motion. Parse filed its answer on October 6, 2023. Discovery is in progress. A Markman hearing is scheduled for February 2024, and trial is scheduled for December 2024.
Between April 20 and June 21, 2023, Parse filed petitions for IPR of all of the patents asserted. On October 13, 2023, IPR was instituted on the 981 patent. The PTAB denied institution of Parse's petitions for IPR on the other five asserted patents. On January 2 and 5, 2024, Parse filed rehearing requests with the PTAB for the 197 and 013 patents, respectively. On November 6, 2023, Parse filed a motion to stay the Delaware action pending the IPRs. On December 21, 2023, the court denied Parse's motion to stay. On February 5, 2024, the PTAB instituted IPRs for the 197 and 013 patents on Parse's requests for rehearing. On February 8, 2024, Parse filed a renewed motion to stay.
Curio
On December 1, 2023, we filed suit against Curio Bioscience, Inc. ("Curio") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Curio Seeker Spatial Mapping Kit and associated products and services infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 10,480,022, 10,662,468, 11,001,879, 11,549,138, and 11,761,030. On February 1, 2024, Curio filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the asserted claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. A case schedule has not yet been set.
On December 4, 2023, we filed a request for a preliminary injunction in the Dusseldorf Local Division of the UPC alleging that the Curio Seeker Spatial Mapping Kit and associated products and services infringe EP Patent No. 2697391 (the "EP 391 patent"). A hearing for the preliminary injunction request has been set for March 26, 2024.
In addition to the litigation discussed above, we may in the future be a party to other litigation or legal proceedings to protect, enforce or defend our patents or other intellectual property, which, if resolved adversely to us, could invalidate or render unenforceable our intellectual property or generally preclude us from restraining, enjoining or otherwise seeking to exclude competitors from commercializing products using technology developed or used by us. For example, our patents and any patents which we in-license may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated or circumvented. If patents we own or license are invalidated or otherwise limited, other companies may be better able to develop products that compete with ours, which would adversely affect our competitive position, business prospects, results of operations and financial condition.
The following are examples of litigation and other adversarial proceedings or disputes that we could become a party to involving our patents or patents licensed to us:
- we have initiated, and in the future may initiate, litigation or other proceedings against third parties to enforce our patent rights;- third parties have initiated, and in the future may initiate, litigation or other proceedings seeking to invalidate patents owned by or licensed to us or to obtain a declaratory judgment that their product or technology does not infringe our patents or patents licensed to us or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable;- third parties have initiated, and in the future may initiate, oppositions, IPRs, post grant reviews or reexamination proceedings challenging the validity or scope of our patent rights, requiring us and/or licensors to participate in such proceedings to defend the validity and scope of our patents;- there are, and in the future may be, more challenges or disputes regarding inventorship or ownership of patents currently identified as being owned by or licensed to us; or - at our initiation or at the initiation of a third-party, the USPTO may initiate an interference between patents or patent applications owned by or licensed to us and those of our competitors, requiring us and/or licensors to participate in an interference proceeding to determine the priority of invention, which could jeopardize our patent rights.
Furthermore, many of our employees were previously employed at universities or other life sciences companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We or our employees may be subject to claims that these employees or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers without consent. Although no such claims are currently pending, litigation may be necessary to defend against such claims if they arise in the future. If we fail to successfully defend such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may be subject to injunctive relief and lose valuable intellectual property rights. A loss of key research personnel work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize certain potential products, which could severely harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.