10x Genomics, Inc. et al. v. NanoString Technologies, Inc.

Fierce Biotech Competitors Clash Over Spatial Genomics Dominance

This patent infringement case is a key battleground in the rapidly evolving and lucrative field of spatial biology, pitting two major publicly-traded life science tools companies against each other. The plaintiffs are 10x Genomics, Inc., a leading developer of gene sequencing technologies, and the President and Fellows of Harvard College, the university where some of the foundational technology was developed and licensed to 10x Genomics' predecessor. The defendant is NanoString Technologies, Inc., a direct competitor that develops and sells instruments for spatial genomics and transcriptomics. The lawsuit is part of a broader, multi-venue dispute across the U.S. and Europe, reflecting the high stakes involved in controlling the market for technology that allows researchers to map gene activity within the spatial context of tissue.

The dispute centers on NanoString's spatial biology platforms, particularly its CosMx™ Spatial Molecular Imager (SMI) and GeoMx® Digital Spatial Profiler. 10x Genomics and Harvard allege these products infringe on a portfolio of patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,021,737 asserted in this specific case. The '737 patent, and others in the litigation, generally covers methods for in situ analysis of biological analytes, a core function of the competing spatial transcriptomics platforms sold by both companies. These technologies are crucial for understanding cellular function and heterogeneity in tissues, with significant applications in oncology, neuroscience, and developmental biology.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a premier venue for patent litigation due to its experienced judiciary and well-developed case law, this case (1:22-cv-00261) is one of several parallel actions between the parties. The litigation's intensity had a significant real-world impact, contributing to NanoString's decision to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February 2024 following a $31 million jury verdict against it in a related Delaware case. The bankruptcy proceedings temporarily stayed the litigation. However, NanoString's assets, including the accused product lines, were subsequently acquired by Bruker Corporation, which has continued the legal fight. The case is also notable for its connection to other major litigations in the spatial genomics space, including a settled dispute between 10x and Vizgen, and extensive proceedings in the European Unified Patent Court (UPC). The global nature of the conflict and the foundational nature of the patents highlight the fierce competition to establish dominance in this cutting-edge scientific market.

Legal Developments and Case Outcome

This patent infringement action was part of a multifaceted global dispute between 10x Genomics and NanoString over pioneering spatial biology technology. The case, centered on NanoString's CosMx™ Spatial Molecular Imager (SMI), concluded abruptly in May 2025 following a comprehensive settlement that resolved all pending litigation between the parties, occurring in the shadow of NanoString's bankruptcy and subsequent acquisition.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2022)

• 2022-02-28: Complaint Filed: 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College (collectively, "10x") filed a patent infringement suit against NanoString Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged that NanoString's CosMx™ Spatial Molecular Imager and associated reagents infringed U.S. Patent No. 11,021,737 and U.S. Patent No. 10,227,639, among others added in later amendments. The patents, owned by Harvard and exclusively licensed to 10x, relate to methods for in-situ analysis of biological targets.
• 2022-08-01: Answer and Counterclaims: NanoString filed its Answer, denying infringement and asserting invalidity of the patents-in-suit. It also brought counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.

Pre-Trial Developments and Motions (2022–2023)

• 2022-09-19: Scheduling Order: The court entered a scheduling order setting key dates for the litigation. A Markman (claim construction) hearing was scheduled for July 14, 2023, and a jury trial was set to begin on June 17, 2024.
• 2023-07-10: Antitrust Counterclaims Permitted: In a significant strategic development, the court granted NanoString's motion to amend its counterclaims to include allegations of antitrust violations and unfair competition. NanoString alleged that 10x and Harvard were "pursuing an ill-gotten monopoly" by enforcing patents that, due to receiving over $19 million in public funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), were required to be licensed on non-exclusive terms. The court found NanoString's allegations plausible, allowing the counterclaims to proceed.
• Claim Construction: A Markman hearing was scheduled for July 14, 2023. While the docket indicates extensive briefing on claim construction, a specific dispositive ruling on claim construction is not prominent in the public record, suggesting the parties may have resolved the disputes or the issue was superseded by the case's eventual termination.

Parallel Proceedings and External Pressures

The Delaware case did not proceed in a vacuum. Several external events heavily influenced its trajectory:

• European Litigation (2023-2024): 10x Genomics aggressively pursued parallel litigation in Europe's Unified Patent Court (UPC). In September 2023, the UPC's Munich local division granted 10x a preliminary injunction against NanoString's CosMx products. However, in a landmark decision in February 2024, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the injunction, finding it likely the patent-in-suit would be declared invalid.
• Related Delaware Verdict (2023): In a separate case in Delaware (1:21-cv-00653-MFK) involving different patents, a jury found on November 17, 2023, that NanoString's GeoMx® Digital Spatial Profiler willfully infringed seven 10x patents, and awarded over $31 million in damages. This verdict significantly increased the financial pressure on NanoString.
• Bankruptcy (2024): Facing mounting litigation costs and the adverse $31 million verdict, NanoString Technologies, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February 2024.
• PTAB Proceedings: A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database did not reveal any inter partes review (IPR) proceedings filed against U.S. Patent No. 11,021,737. The litigation appears to have proceeded without a parallel validity challenge at the PTAB on this specific patent.

Settlement and Dismissal (2024-2025)

• Acquisition of NanoString Assets: In May 2024, Bruker Corporation announced it had acquired the assets of NanoString, including its spatial biology instrument platforms.
• 2025-05-13: Settlement and Dismissal: On the day of this report, May 13, 2025, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. The court subsequently entered an order dismissing all claims and counterclaims and officially closing the case. The filing came as part of a broader global settlement and cross-licensing agreement between 10x Genomics and Bruker (as the successor to NanoString's business). The details of the agreement were confidential, but it terminated all outstanding litigation between the companies worldwide, including in Delaware and at the UPC. This settlement ended the years-long, high-stakes patent dispute over the future of spatial biology technology.

Based on a review of the docket and other legal sources, the following is a list of counsel of record representing the plaintiffs, 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College, in this patent infringement case.

For Plaintiff 10x Genomics, Inc.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Matthew D. Powers

  • Firm: Tensegrity Law Group LLP (Redwood Shores, CA)
  • Note: A nationally recognized trial lawyer, Powers has secured numerous favorable verdicts and settlements in high-stakes patent cases for technology companies.

• Name: Paul Ehrlich

  • Firm: Tensegrity Law Group LLP (Redwood Shores, CA)
  • Note: Ehrlich has extensive experience in patent litigation concerning complex technologies, including life sciences and computer technology, and has represented clients in district courts and the ITC.

• Name: Stefani E. Smith

  • Firm: Tensegrity Law Group LLP (Redwood Shores, CA)
  • Note: Smith's practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, and she has been involved in several of Tensegrity's significant trial victories in the life sciences sector.

Local Counsel

• Name: Jack B. Blumenfeld

  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: A veteran of the Delaware patent bar, Blumenfeld has served as lead or Delaware counsel for major corporations in a wide array of significant patent infringement cases for over 40 years.

• Name: Cameron P. Clark

  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: As a partner in Morris Nichols' Intellectual Property Litigation Group, Clark focuses on patent and trade secret litigation in the District of Delaware.

For Plaintiff President and Fellows of Harvard College

Lead Counsel

• Name: Geoffrey M. Raux

  • Firm: Foley & Lardner LLP (Boston, MA)
  • Note: Raux is an IP litigator who represents clients in the life sciences and technology sectors in patent, trade secret, and licensing disputes.

• Name: Ruben J. Rodrigues

  • Firm: Foley & Lardner LLP (Boston, MA)
  • Note: Rodrigues focuses his practice on IP litigation, with an emphasis on the life sciences, medical devices, and high-tech industries.

• Name: Michael J. Tuteur

  • Firm: Foley & Lardner LLP (Boston, MA)
  • Note: Tuteur is an experienced trial lawyer who has handled complex intellectual property and commercial litigation for technology and life sciences companies.

Local Counsel

• Name: Kenneth L. Dorsney

  • Firm: Morris James LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Dorsney is the chair of his firm's Intellectual Property Litigation practice and frequently serves as Delaware counsel in patent litigation.

• Name: Cortlan S. Hitch

  • Firm: Morris James LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Hitch's practice includes representing clients in patent infringement and other intellectual property disputes before the District of Delaware.

Note: While the broader, multi-forum dispute between 10x Genomics and NanoString involved a wide array of legal talent and firms, the attorneys listed above are those who have formally appeared on the docket as counsel for the plaintiffs in this specific District of Delaware case (1:22-cv-00261). The global litigation between the parent companies concluded with a settlement announced in May 2025.

Counsel for Defendant NanoString Technologies, Inc.

Initial filings show NanoString was represented by attorneys from Farnan LLP as local counsel and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP as lead counsel. Following NanoString's bankruptcy and acquisition by Bruker, the counsel of record appears to have remained consistent based on recent filings, although this could change.

Here are the counsel who have appeared on behalf of NanoString Technologies, Inc. in this case:

Lead Counsel

• Edward R. Reines

  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (Redwood Shores, CA). As of March 2025, Mr. Reines reportedly moved to Jones Day.
  • Note: A nationally recognized first-chair trial lawyer, he co-headed Weil's Patent Litigation and Life Sciences practices and has extensive experience in high-stakes biotech and life sciences patent disputes, including a notable victory for Bio-Rad against plaintiff 10x Genomics.

• Derek C. Walter

  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (Redwood Shores, CA). As of March 2025, Mr. Walter also reportedly moved to Jones Day along with Edward Reines.
  • Note: Walter has significant experience in patent litigation, often working alongside Edward Reines on major life sciences cases.

• Christopher Pepe

  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (Washington, D.C.).
  • Note: A partner in Weil's patent litigation practice, his experience covers a range of technologies.

Of Counsel / Additional Counsel

• Amanda Branch

  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (Washington, D.C.).
  • Note: Branch is an associate whose practice focuses on patent and intellectual property litigation.

• Natalie C. Kennedy

  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (New York, NY).
  • Note: Kennedy is a partner with experience in complex commercial and intellectual property litigation.

• Yiqun Zhang

  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (Redwood Shores, CA).
  • Note: An associate admitted pro hac vice in this case.

Local Counsel

• Brian E. Farnan

  • Firm: Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE).
  • Note: A founding partner of the firm, Farnan has extensive experience as Delaware local counsel in major patent litigation.

• Michael J. Farnan

  • Firm: Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE).
  • Note: Partner at Farnan LLP, specializing as local counsel in Delaware patent cases.