injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. The Court has not yet set a schedule for this case and discovery has not yet commenced. If we are found to infringe these patents or if we are prohibited from selling our products, our business, operations, financial results and reputation would be significantly adversely impacted.
The Becton Dickinson Action
On November 15, 2018, Becton, Dickinson and Company and Cellular Research, Inc. filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that we infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,835,358, 9,845,502, 9,315,857, 9,816,137, 9,708,659, 9,290,808, 9,290,809, 9,567,645, 9,567,646, 9,598,736 and 9,637,799. The complaint asserted that substantially all of our products infringe these patents. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. On January 18, 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the asserted claims are directed to patent ineligible abstract ideas. Briefing on the motion to dismiss has not yet been completed. The Court has not yet ruled on or set a hearing date for the motion. The Court has not yet set a schedule for this case and discovery has not yet commenced. The accused products constitute a substantial majority of our revenue, and if we are found to infringe these patents or if we are prohibited from selling our products, our business, operations, financial results and reputation would be significantly adversely impacted.
As we enter new markets or introduce new products, we expect that competitors will likely claim that our products infringe their intellectual property rights. Our success depends in part on our ability to defend ourselves against such claims and maintain the validity of our patents and other proprietary rights.
We are involved in lawsuits to protect, enforce or defend our patents and other intellectual property rights, which are expensive, time consuming and could ultimately be unsuccessful.
On January 11, 2018, we filed a complaint against Bio-Rad at the ITC pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 alleging that Bio-Rad infringes our U.S. Patent Nos. 9,644,204, 9,689,024, 9,695,468 and 9,856,530 (the “ITC 1100 Action”). Our complaint in the ITC 1100 Action seeks an exclusion order preventing Bio-Rad from importing certain microfluidic chips and other products into the United States and a cease and desist order preventing Bio-Rad from selling such importing chips and other products. An evidentiary hearing for the ITC 1100 Action was held in March of 2019. An Initial Determination is scheduled to be issued by the judge on May 30, 2019. The Target Date for the Final Determination is scheduled for September 30, 2019.
In the ITC 1100 Action, Bio-Rad claimed that the asserted patents are not valid. Bio-Rad also claimed that the asserted patents are not enforceable for improperly omitting joint inventors and also asserted ownership or co-ownership interest in the asserted patents based on our founders, Drs. Saxonov and Hindson, having been former employees of QuantaLife, Inc. Drs. Saxonov and Hindson are co-inventors on many core patents in our intellectual property portfolio, in addition to the patents asserted in the ITC 1100 Action. If Bio-Rad succeeds in invalidating the asserted patents or rendering them unenforceable or in obtaining an ownership interest in the asserted patents, the strength of our intellectual property portfolio could be diminished and our ability to protect our products, business and reputation or to generate licensing revenue from our intellectual property would be adversely impacted.
Also in January 2018, we filed a related but separate suit against Bio-Rad in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Bio-Rad infringes the ‘204, ‘024, ‘468 and ‘530 patents. This litigation has been stayed pending resolution of the ITC 1100 Action. Bio-Rad may seek to invalidate or claim an ownership interest in the asserted patents during the litigation. If Bio-Rad succeeds in invalidating or obtaining an ownership interest in the asserted patents, the strength of our intellectual property portfolio could be diminished and our ability to protect our products, business and reputation or to generate licensing revenue from our intellectual property would be adversely impacted.
46