Other Litigation Matters.
On January 27, 2020, the Company filed suit against ArcherDX, Inc., or ArcherDX, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that certain ArcherDX DNA oncology products infringe Natera’s U.S. Patent No. 10,538,814. On April 15, 2020, Natera filed an amended complaint alleging additional ArcherDX DNA and RNA oncology products infringe Natera’s U.S. Patent Nos. 10,557,172; 10,597,708; and 10,590,482. The amended complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. On August 6, 2020, the Company filed an additional suit against ArcherDX in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that certain ArcherDX DNA oncology products infringe Natera’s U.S. Patent No. 10,731,220 and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. On June 4, 2020, ArcherDX filed a motion to dismiss aspects of the Company’s case, including to invalidate several of Natera’s asserted patents. That motion was denied in its entirety on October 2, 2020.
On June 17, 2020, the Company filed suit against Progenity, Inc., or Progenity, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that Progenity’s NIPT test infringes Natera’s U.S. Patent Numbers 9,228,234; 9,424,392; 10,227,652; 10,240,202; 10,266,893; and 10,522,242 (the “Natera Patents”). The complaint seeks treble damages and injunctive relief. The Company filed a second suit against Progenity in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on June 19, 2020, alleging that Progenity’s NIPT test infringes the Natera Patents, and seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. On or about July 2, 2020, Progenity filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the Natera Patents.
On October 6, 2020, the Company filed suit against Genosity Inc. (“Genosity”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that various Genosity products infringe Natera’s U.S. Patent No. 10,732,220. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.
On June 1, 2020, a suit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas by Ravgen, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,727,720 and 7,332,277. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.
On or about August 13, 2019, a suit was filed against the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by a patient alleging claims relating to a discordant test result and seeking monetary damages.
On March 15, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the plaintiff received an unauthorized text message to her cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Among other relief, the complaint sought statutory and other damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On June 18, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. An amended complaint was filed on April 23, 2020. The case was dismissed by stipulation of the parties effective November 2, 2020.
Director and Officer Indemnifications
As permitted under Delaware law, and as set forth in the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation and its Bylaws, the Company indemnifies its directors, executive officers, other officers, employees and other agents for certain events or occurrences that may arise while in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under this indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has insurance policies that may limit its exposure and may enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. Assuming the applicability of coverage, the willingness of the insurer to assume coverage, and subject to certain retention, loss limits and other policy provisions, the Company believes any obligations under this indemnification would not be material, other than an initial $1.5 million for securities related claims and $0.3 million for commercial general liability claims. However, no assurances can be given that the covering insurers will not attempt to dispute the validity, applicability, or amount of coverage without expensive litigation against these insurers, in which case the Company may incur substantial liabilities as a result of these indemnification obligations.