CareDx, Inc.CDNA
CareDx, Inc. Commitments Disclosure
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; 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 December 31, 2025, the carrying value of the ROU asset was $22.8 million. The related current and non-current lease liabilities as of December 31, 2025 were $6.5 million and $19.7 million, respectively. The current and non-current lease liabilities are included in accrued and and operating lease liabilities, less current portion, respectively, in the consolidated balance sheets.
The following table summarizes the lease cost for the years ended December 31, (in thousands):
| 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |||||||||||||||
| Operating lease cost | $ | 7,340 | $ | 7,717 | $ | 7,936 | |||||||||||
| Total lease cost | $ | 7,340 | $ | 7,717 | $ | 7,936 | |||||||||||
| December 31, | |||||||||||
| 2025 | 2024 | ||||||||||
| Other information: | |||||||||||
| Weighted-average remaining lease term - Operating leases (in years) | 4.02 | 4.61 | |||||||||
| Weighted-average discount rate - Operating leases (%) | 7.0 | % | 7.1 | % | |||||||
Supplemental cash flow information related to leases for the years ended December 31, are as follows (in thousands):
| 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |||||||||||||||
| Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities | |||||||||||||||||
| Operating cash flows used for operating leases | $ | 6,055 | $ | 5,339 | $ | 5,454 | |||||||||||
| Total | $ | 6,055 | $ | 5,339 | $ | 5,454 | |||||||||||
Maturities of operating lease liabilities as of December 31, 2025, are as follows (in thousands):
| Years ending December 31, | Operating Leases | ||||
| 2026 | $ | 7,905 | |||
| 2027 | 8,248 | ||||
| 2028 | 7,573 | ||||
| 2029 | 2,581 | ||||
| 2030 | 1,768 | ||||
| Thereafter | 1,715 | ||||
| Total lease payments | 29,790 | ||||
| Less imputed interest | 3,596 | ||||
| Present value of future minimum lease payments | 26,194 | ||||
| Less operating lease liability, current portion | 6,515 | ||||
| Operating lease liability, long-term portion | $ | 19,679 | |||
As of December 31, 2025, the Company’s leases had remaining terms of 0.41 years to 7.09 years, some of which include options to extend the lease term.
Royalty Commitments
Illumina
On May 4, 2018, the Company entered into a license agreement with Illumina, Inc., or 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, or 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, 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 consolidated financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability had been incurred at the date of the 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 United States Securities and Exchange Commission, or 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.
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, or the 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, or 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.
On September 18, 2024, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint without prejudice, providing plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint by no later than October 2, 2024 (a deadline which was subsequently extended by stipulation). 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. Among other things, plaintiffs removed former Chief Financial Officer, Ankur Dhingra, as a named defendant. 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 defendant’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.
On April 1, 2025, a mediation was held between the parties to the Securities Class Action with the assistance of Phillips ADR Enterprises.
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. On May 16, 2025, the parties reached a definitive stipulation of settlement. On May 23, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval. On July 23, 2025, the District Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement triggering the Company's obligation to fund its portion of the settlement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company and its insurers each deposited their respective obligations into an escrow account.
In accordance with the Court’s July 23, 2025 order, plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval and a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses on September 30, 2025. On December 4, 2025, the Court 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, or 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, or 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, or 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, which is currently scheduled for December 2, 2025 in the Edelman Derivative Action. The motion for preliminary approval remains under consideration.
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, subject to resolution of the plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees.
There is no guarantee that the parties will reach a definitive settlement or, if they do, that the settlement will be approved by the Court. In the event there is no settlement, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company believes that it 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 liabilities for these suits.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Feb 25, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Feb 28, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Feb 28, 2024 | |
| 2022 | Feb 27, 2023 | |
| 2021 | Feb 24, 2022 | |
| 2020 | Feb 24, 2021 | |
| 2019 | Feb 28, 2020 | |
| 2018 | Mar 6, 2019 | |
| 2017 | Mar 22, 2018 | |
| 2016 | Apr 21, 2017 | |
| 2015 | Mar 29, 2016 | |
About Commitments Disclosures
Commitments and contingencies disclosures catalog a company's off-balance-sheet obligations and legal exposures — purchase commitments, guarantee arrangements, pending litigation, and regulatory proceedings. These items represent potential future cash outflows that may not appear as liabilities on the balance sheet until they become probable and estimable.
Key signals: litigation reserves and disclosed loss ranges quantify management's estimate of legal exposure, but unquantified "reasonably possible" losses often represent the larger risk. Watch for changes in language around pending cases — shifts from "remote" to "reasonably possible" or increases in estimated loss ranges signal deteriorating outcomes. Unconditional purchase obligations and take-or-pay contracts create fixed cost structures that reduce operational flexibility. Guarantee arrangements for subsidiaries or joint ventures can create cascading obligations. Compare the total commitment schedule against projected free cash flow to assess whether the company can meet its obligations without additional financing.