10x Genomics, Inc. et al. v. Element Biosciences, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement lawsuit represents a significant clash in the competitive life sciences and genomics market between an established leader and a well-funded challenger. The plaintiffs are 10x Genomics, Inc., a major developer of single-cell and spatial biology analysis systems, and The President and Fellows of Harvard College, the university entity that owns the patents and exclusively licenses them to 10x Genomics. The defendant, Element Biosciences, Inc., is a life sciences company that has recently emerged as a significant competitor in the DNA sequencing and multi-omics space. The lawsuit alleges that Element's AVITI24™, a multiomic analysis platform, and its associated "Teton" chemistry, infringe on four of the plaintiffs' patents. The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction to halt sales of the accused products, as well as monetary damages for past infringement. In a public statement, Element Biosciences has stated it "strongly disagrees with the allegations" and believes the lawsuit is part of a "broader pattern of using the same patent portfolio to stifle innovations across the industry," indicating it will vigorously defend itself.

The case was filed on May 8, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:26-cv-00538), a venue highly favored for patent litigation due to its experienced judiciary and well-developed case law. A specific judge has not yet been publicly assigned to the case. The four asserted patents all stem from foundational research conducted at Harvard University and generally relate to methods for detecting and analyzing analytes and nucleic acids in biological samples. The patents at issue are:

• U.S. Patent No. 12,264,358: Pertains to compositions and methods for detecting multiple analytes in a sample.
• U.S. Patent No. 11,021,737: Describes compositions and methods for analyte detection, allowing for high levels of multiplexing.
• U.S. Patent No. 11,566,276: Covers methods for in-situ sequencing of nucleic acids within a biological sample.
• U.S. Patent No. 11,566,277: Relates to methods of identifying target molecules in a sample using sequential detection steps.

The lawsuit is notable as it continues a clear pattern of enforcement by 10x Genomics and Harvard, who have previously sued several other competitors, including NanoString, Vizgen, and Bruker, over the same family of patents in both U.S. and European courts. This aggressive legal strategy underscores the high stakes in the rapidly evolving and lucrative spatial biology and genomics markets, where companies are fiercely competing for market share. The dispute highlights the intense competition between 10x's established platforms and newer, disruptive technologies like Element's AVITI system. While no parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) have been identified for these specific patents against Element, defendants in such high-stakes cases often turn to the PTAB to challenge patent validity, a strategic consideration that will be closely watched as this case progresses.

As of May 13, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between 10x Genomics and Element Biosciences is in its nascent stage, with only initial filings having occurred.

Key Legal Developments (Chronological)

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2026-05-08: Plaintiffs 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College file a patent infringement complaint against Element Biosciences, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case is assigned civil action number 1:26-cv-00538. The complaint alleges that Element's AVITI24 platform and Teton chemistry infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 12,264,358; 11,021,737; 11,566,276; and 11,566,277. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and seek a permanent injunction, damages, and/or ongoing royalties.

  • (D.I. 1) - Complaint filed.
  • (D.I. 6) - Summons issued to Element Biosciences.
  • (D.I. 7) - Return of service executed. According to the docket, service was completed on May 8, 2026, making Defendant's answer due by May 29, 2026.

• 2026-05-08: In a press release, Element Biosciences acknowledges the lawsuit, stating it "strongly disagrees with the allegations made by 10x Genomics and believes the claims are without merit." The company announced its intention to "vigorously defend its technology."

As of May 13, 2026, Element Biosciences has not yet filed its Answer or any counterclaims. No other substantive motions have been filed by either party.

Pre-trial Motions, Claim Construction, and Discovery

• The case has not yet reached these stages.

Trial and Final Disposition

• The case is pending and has not been scheduled for trial. No settlement, dismissal, or judgment has occurred.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records indicates that as of May 13, 2026, no inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) petitions have been filed by Element Biosciences challenging the validity of the four asserted patents. This is not unexpected, given the short time since the litigation commenced.

The case remains in its preliminary phase, with the next expected development being Element Biosciences' responsive pleading by the end of May 2026.

Plaintiffs' Counsel of Record Identified in New Patent Suit

As of May 13, 2026, counsel for plaintiffs 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard University) are beginning to be identified following the patent infringement complaint filed on May 8, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. While formal notices of appearance may still be pending on the public docket, legal news reports have identified the primary attorneys representing 10x Genomics.

Representation for co-plaintiff Harvard University has not yet been explicitly named in public reports. Typically, the university's Office of the General Counsel oversees such litigation and works in conjunction with outside counsel.

For Plaintiff 10x Genomics, Inc.:

Based on reporting from industry publication ip fray, the following attorneys from Tensegrity Law Group LLP are representing 10x Genomics in this matter. Tensegrity has a history of representing 10x in significant patent litigation, including securing a $31 million jury verdict against NanoString Technologies in the District of Delaware.

Lead Counsel:

• Name: Matthew Powers

  • Firm: Tensegrity Law Group LLP (Redwood Shores, CA)
  • Note: A nationally recognized trial lawyer known for high-stakes patent litigation for tech and life sciences companies.

• Name: Paul Ehrlich

  • Firm: Tensegrity Law Group LLP (Redwood Shores, CA)
  • Note: Focuses on patent litigation in complex technologies and has been involved in multiple major cases for 10x Genomics.

Of Counsel / Additional Counsel:

• Name: Li Shen

  • Firm: Tensegrity Law Group LLP (Redwood Shores, CA)
  • Note: An experienced patent litigator with a technical background, frequently part of Tensegrity's teams on major cases.

• Name: Azra Hadzimehmedovic

  • Firm: Tensegrity Law Group LLP (Redwood Shores, CA)
  • Note: Specializes in patent litigation and has represented 10x Genomics in prior successful actions.

• Name: Ronald Pabis

  • Firm: Tensegrity Law Group LLP (Redwood Shores, CA)
  • Note: Focuses on patent litigation and appeals, bringing extensive experience in federal court and ITC proceedings.

• Name: Kiley White

  • Firm: Tensegrity Law Group LLP (Redwood Shores, CA)
  • Note: An attorney with the firm who is part of the litigation team for 10x Genomics.

Local Counsel:

While not yet formally listed on the docket for this case, attorneys from Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP have frequently served as local counsel for 10x Genomics in past Delaware patent cases, as seen in litigation against Vizgen Inc. It is common practice for out-of-state law firms to partner with a Delaware-based firm.

In-House Counsel:

10x Genomics' internal legal team is likely overseeing the litigation strategy. Key in-house counsel involved in past intellectual property disputes include:

• Name: Eric Whitaker

  • Role: Chief Legal Officer
  • Note: Oversees global legal operations and has been present at hearings in past significant patent cases.

• Name: Randy Wu

  • Role: Vice President, IP & Litigation
  • Note: Manages the company's intellectual property portfolio and litigation efforts.

Counsel for the defendant, Element Biosciences, Inc., has not yet filed a notice of appearance. The case is still in its earliest stages, and further appearances are expected to be filed with the court in the coming weeks.

As of May 13, 2026, counsel for the defendant, Element Biosciences, Inc., has not yet formally filed a notice of appearance on the docket for 10x Genomics, Inc. et al. v. Element Biosciences, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00538, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit was filed on May 8, 2026, and it is not uncommon for a brief period to elapse before defense counsel makes an official appearance.

While no attorneys are officially of record in this specific case, counsel from the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP has represented Element Biosciences in other recent, high-stakes patent litigations, including in the District of Delaware, making them the likely representatives in this matter.

Attorneys who have represented Element Biosciences in prior, similar patent litigation include:

• Kevin Johnson: A partner at Quinn Emanuel, likely to serve as lead counsel. He is known for representing technology companies in complex intellectual property disputes.
• David Bilsker: A partner at Quinn Emanuel who has previously represented Element alongside Kevin Johnson in patent litigation.
• Pilar Gabrielle Kraman: An attorney who has appeared for Element Biosciences in previous patent litigation in the District of Delaware.
• Margaret H.S. Shyr, Hana Oh, Daniel G. Mackrides, and Andrew Tigchelaar: These attorneys have also represented Element Biosciences in prior Delaware patent infringement suits.

The legal team from Quinn Emanuel has a well-established practice in life sciences and patent law, frequently handling major disputes for companies in the genomic sequencing industry. An official notice of appearance identifying the specific attorneys for this case is expected to be filed in the coming days or weeks.