In the United States, most of our products are currently labeled and sold for Research Use Only, or RUO, and are not intended for the diagnosis or treatment of disease, and are sold to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic and government institutions and research laboratories. Because such RUO products are not intended for diagnostic or clinical use, and the products do not include clinical or diagnostic claims or provide directions for use as diagnostic products, they are not medical devices and not subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, as medical devices.FDA. In particular, while the FDA regulations require that RUO products be appropriately labeled, “For Research Use Only. Not for Use in Diagnostic Procedures,” the regulations do not subject such products to the FDA’s pre- and post-market controls for medical devices. Pursuant to the FDA guidance on RUO products, a company may not make clinical or diagnostic claims about an RUO product or provide clinical directions or clinical support services to customers for RUO products, or engage in distribution or sales practices that are not consistent with the RUO labeling. If the FDA were to modify its approach to regulating RUO products, compliance with additional or changes in regulations could reduce our revenue or increase our costs and adversely affect our business, prospects, results of operations or financial condition.

Even where our products are labeled, promoted, and intended as RUO, the FDA or comparable agencies of other countries, depending on the totality of circumstances, could disagree with our conclusion that our products are intended for research use only or deem our sales, marketing and promotional efforts as being inconsistent with research use only products. For example,the RUO designation. If the

In addition, we sell dual-use instruments with software that has both FDA-cleared functions, and research functions for which the FDA approval or clearance is not required. Dual-use instruments are subject to FDA regulation since they are intended, at least in part, for use by customers performing clinical diagnostic testing. In November 2014, the FDA issued a guidance document that described the FDA’s approach to regulating molecular diagnostic instruments that combine both approved/cleared device functions and research functions for which approval/clearance is not required. There is a risk that the requirements for dual-use instruments could change causing additional costs and delays for development of these products. For example, there could be enforcement action if the FDA determines that approval or clearance was required for those functions for which the FDA approval or clearance has not been obtained, or the instruments are being promoted for off-label use. There is also a risk that the FDA could broaden its current regulatory enforcement of dual-use instruments through additional FDA oversight of such products or impose additional requirements upon such products. In July 2017, FDA adopted a new regulation exempting certain clinical multiplex test systems, like the ones used with the Prosigna assay that we supply to Veracyte, from premarket notification requirements, although such instruments are still required to comply with the special controls applicable to Class II medical devices. However, these new regulations will not impact the FDA clearance requirements for our nCounter Dx Analysis System intended for use with specific assays or panels for clinical or diagnostic purposes, such as Prosigna, each of which will require separate premarket notification or premarket approval.

WeOur products may also be subject to additional FDA or global regulatory authority post-marketing obligations or requirements by the FDA or other regulatory authorities to change our current product classifications which would impose additional regulatory obligations on us and our contractors. If we, Veracyte, or our contractors or suppliers are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may not be permitted to market our medical device products and/or may be subject to enforcement by EU Competent Authorities and the FDA and other global regulatory authorities such as through the issuance of warning or untitled letters, fines, injunctions, and civil penalties; recall or seizure of products; operating restrictions; and criminal prosecution. In addition, we and Veracyte may be subject to similar regulatory regimes of other foreign jurisdictions as we continue to commercialize our products in new markets outside of the United States and Europe. Any adverse action by Notified Body, EU Competent Authority, the FDA or other global regulatory authority could significantly increase our expenses, expose us to greater liability, limit our revenue and profitability, and cause reputational harm.

We are also required to comply with an increasing number of environmental compliance regulations, including those focused upon the restriction of certain hazardous substances in our products. We have compliance programs designed to meet the requirements of environmental compliance regulations, but our failure to comply with such current or future regulations could result in the imposition of substantial fines, suspension of production, alteration of our manufacturing processes or cessation of operations that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Among other requirements, the GDPR regulates transfers of personal data subject to the GDPR to third countries that have not been found to provide adequate protection to such personal data, including the U.S. We have undertaken certain efforts to conform transfers of personal data from the European Economic Area, or EEA, to the U.S. and other jurisdictions based on our understanding of current regulatory obligations and the guidance of data protection authorities, including standard contractual clauses approved by the European Commission, or the SCCs, and the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield programs administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Despite this, we may be unsuccessful in maintaining conforming means of transferring personal data from the EEA, Switzerland, and United Kingdom, in particular as a result of continued legal and legislative activity within those regions. The EU-U.S.-and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield frameworks and the SCCs have been subject to legal challenge and on July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU, issued a decision invalidating the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and imposing additional requirements in connection with the use of the SCCs. The Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield also has been declared invalid. The European Commission issued new SCCs in June 2021 that account for the CJEU’s decision and other developments, which needwere required to be put in place for new contracts involving the transfer of personal data from the EEA to a third country as of September 27, 2021, and by December 27, 2022, replace previous SCCs included in existing contracts concluded before September 27, 2021.place. Additionally, the United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office issued new standard contractual clauses to support personal data transfers out of the United Kingdom on February 2, 2022. If approved by the United Kingdom Parliament, these2022 that were required to be used for new contractual arrangements as of September 21, 2022, and must replace prior standard contractual clauses will become effectiveas of March 21, 2022. We2024. On March 25, 2022, the United States and EU announced an “agreement in principle” to replace the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield with the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework. Although progress has since been made towards the establishment of this as a valid transfer mechanism, this framework has not yet been established, and it remains unclear whether it will be appropriate for us to utilize if it is established. More generally, we are assessing these developments and their impact on our data transfer mechanisms. We may, in addition to other impacts, experience additional costs associated with increased compliance burdens, and we and our customers face the potential for regulators in the EEA, Switzerland, and United Kingdom to apply different standards to the transfer of personal data from those regions to the U.S., and to block, or require ad hoc verification of measures taken with respect to, certain data flows from those regions to the U.S. We also may be required to engage in new contract negotiations with third parties that aid in processing data on our behalf. We may find it necessary or desirable to make further changes to our handling of personal data of residents of those regions. The regulatory environment applicable to the handling of the personal data of EEA, Switzerland, and United Kingdom residents, and our actions taken in response, may cause us to assume additional liabilities or incur additional costs and could result in our business, operating results and financial condition being harmed. Additionally, we and

The exit of the United Kingdom from the EU, also known as Brexit, has created uncertainty with regard to data protection in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom maintains the Data Protection Act of 2018 and the UK GDPR, which collectively implement and complement the GDPR and provide for penalties for noncompliance of up to the greater of £17.5 million, or four percent, of worldwide revenues. On June 28, 2021, the European Commission announced a decision of “adequacy” concluding that the

More generally, the laws, rules and regulations relating to privacy or data protection to which we may be subject, or that otherwise apply to our business, are constantly evolving, and we expect that there will continue to be new proposed laws, regulations and industry standards concerning these matters in the United States, the EU and other jurisdictions. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws or regulations described above or others that apply to us, or to which we become subject in the future, we may be subject to claims, complaints, investigations, enforcement actions, and penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

We rely on patent protection as well as trademark, copyright, trade secret and other intellectual property rights protection and contractual restrictions to protect our proprietary technologies, all of which provide limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. As of December 31, 2021,2022, we owned or licensed approximately 3538 issued U.S. patents and approximately 2421 pending U.S. patent applications, including provisional and non-provisional filings and 5 pre-nationalization PCT applications. We also owned or licensed approximately 303312 pending and granted counterpart applications worldwide, including 126123 country-specific validations of 1817 European patents. We continue to file new patent applications to protect the full range of our technologies. If we fail to protect our intellectual

The patent positions of life sciences companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in such companies’ patents has emerged to date inside or outside the United States. Furthermore, in the biotechnology field, courts frequently render opinions that may affect the patentability of certain inventions or discoveries, including opinions that may affect the patentability of methods for analyzing or comparing biological macromolecules including nucleic acids, such as DNA and RNA, and proteins.

In particular, the patent positions of companies engaged in development and commercialization of genomic diagnostic tests, like Prosigna, are particularly uncertain. Various United States courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have rendered decisions that impact the scope of patentability of certain inventions or discoveries relating to genomic diagnostics. Specifically, these decisions stand for the proposition that patent claims that recite laws of nature (for example, the relationships between gene expression levels and the likelihood of risk of recurrence of cancer) are not themselves patentable unless those patent claims have “sufficient” additional features which provide practical assurance that the processes are genuinely inventive applications of those laws, rather than patent drafting efforts designed to monopolize the law of nature itself. What constitutes a “sufficient” additional feature is uncertain. Furthermore, in view of these decisions, in December 2014 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, published revised guidelines for patent examiners to apply when examining process claims for patent eligibility. This guidance was updated by the USPTO in July 2015 and additional illustrative examples provided in May 2016. The USPTO provided additional guidance on examination procedures pertaining to subject matter eligibility in April

The laws of some non-U.S. countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending such rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business; the foreign court may find that our enforced patent is invalid or unenforceable.

In addition to pursuing patents on our technology, we take steps to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology by entering into confidentiality agreements and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, corporate partners and, when needed, our advisors. Similarly, where permitted by applicable law, we enter into non-compete agreements with certain of our employees. Such agreements may not be enforceable or may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets or other proprietary information in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure or other breaches of the agreements, and we may not be able to prevent such unauthorized disclosure. Monitoring unauthorized disclosure is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to prevent such disclosure are, or will be, adequate. If we were to enforce a claim that a third party had illegally obtained and was using our trade secrets, it would be expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States may be less willing to protect trade secrets.

In addition, competitors could purchase our products and attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, willfully infringe our intellectual property rights, design around our protected technology or develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside of our intellectual property rights. In addition, competitors may develop their own versions of our technology in countries where we did not apply for patents, where our patents have not issued or where our intellectual property rights are not recognized and compete with us in those countries and markets. If our intellectual property is not adequately protected so as to protect our market against competitors’ products and methods, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business.

We have not yet registered certain of our trademarks in all of our potential markets. If we apply to register these trademarks, our applications may not be allowed for registration, and our registered trademarks may not be maintained or enforced. In addition, opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademark applications and registrations, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. If we do not secure registrations for our trademarks, we may encounter more difficulty in enforcing them against third parties than we otherwise would.

To the extent our intellectual property, including licensed intellectual property, offers inadequate protection, or is found to be invalid or unenforceable, we would be exposed to a greater risk of direct competition. If our intellectual property does not provide adequate protection against our competitors’ products, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as

We rely on licenses in order to be able to use various proprietary technologies, including our core digital molecular barcoding technology licensed from the Institute for Systems Biology and technology relating to Prosigna licensed from Veracyte. We do not own the patents that underlie these licenses. Our rights to use these technologies and employ the inventions claimed in the licensed patents are subject to the continuation of and compliance with the terms of those licenses.

We may need to license other technologies to commercialize future products. We may also need to negotiate licenses to patents and patent applications after launching any of our commercial products. Our business may suffer if the patents or patent applications are unavailable for license or if we are unable to enter into necessary licenses on acceptable terms.

In some cases, we do not control the prosecution, maintenance, or filing of the patents to which we hold licenses, or the enforcement of these patents against third parties. Some of our patents and patent applications were either acquired from another company who acquired those patents and patent applications from yet another company, or are licensed from a third party. Thus, these patents and patent applications were not written by us or our attorneys, and we did not have control over the drafting and prosecution. The former patent owners and our licensors might not have given the same attention to the drafting and prosecution of these patents and applications as we would have if we had been the owners of the patents and applications and had control over the drafting and prosecution. We cannot be certain that drafting or prosecution of the licensed patents and patent applications by the licensors has been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights.

Enforcement of our licensed patents or defense of any claims asserting the invalidity of these patents is often subject to the control or cooperation of our licensors. Certain of our licenses contain provisions that allow the licensor to terminate the license upon specific conditions. Therefore, our business may suffer if these licenses terminate, if the licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license or fail to prevent infringement by third parties or if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid. Our rights under the licenses are subject to our continued compliance with the terms of the license, including the payment of royalties due under the license. Because of the complexity of our products and the patents we have licensed, determining the scope of the license and related royalty obligation can be difficult and can lead to disputes between us and the licensor. An unfavorable resolution of such a dispute could lead to an increase in the royalties payable pursuant to the license or termination of the license. If a licensor believes that we are not paying the royalties due under the license or are otherwise not in compliance with the terms of the license, the licensor might attempt to revoke the license. If such an attempt were successful, we might be barred from producing and selling some of our products.

In addition, certain of the patents we have licensed relate to technology that was developed with U.S. government grants. Federal regulations impose certain domestic manufacturing requirements with respect to some of our products embodying these patents. Additionally, under the Bayh-Dole Act, the U.S. government has certain rights to inventions developed with such grants.

We have received notices of claims of infringement and misappropriation or misuse of other parties’ proprietary rights in the past and may from time to time receive additional notices. Some of these claims have led and may lead to litigation. We

Litigation may also be necessary for us to protect or enforce our patent and proprietary rights, to defend against third-party claims or to determine the scope, coverage and validity of the proprietary rights of others. For example, on October 20, 2022, we filed suit against 10x Genomics, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that 10x Genomics’ Visium Spatial Gene Expression system and related products and services infringe our U.S. Patent No. 11,473,142, “Chemical Compositions and Uses Thereof," and, on January 24, 2023, our additional infringement claims against 10x Genomics with respect to a second NanoString patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,377,689, were consolidated into this case. Litigation could result in substantial legal fees and could adversely affect the scope of our patent protection and reduce our ability to compete in the marketplace. The outcome of any litigation or other proceeding is inherently uncertain and might not be favorable to us. If we resort to legal proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights or to determine the validity, scope and coverage of the intellectual property or other proprietary rights of others, the proceedings could be burdensome and expensive, even if we were to prevail. Any litigation that may be necessary in the future could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition.

Numerous significant intellectual property issues have been litigated, and will likely continue to be litigated, between existing and new participants in our existing and targeted markets. Our success depends in part on our non-infringement of the patents or proprietary rights of third parties. We develop complex products that integrate a wide range of technologies which may impact our ability to do so clear of third-party rights and therefore may need to license other technologies or challenge the scope, coverage and validity of the proprietary rights of others to commercialize future products. As we develop new technologies such as those related to digital spatial profiling, spatial molecular imaging and sequencing, for example, and move into new markets and applications for our products, incumbent participants in such markets may assert their patents and other proprietary rights against us as part of a business strategy to slow our entry into such markets, impede our successful competition and/or extract substantial license and royalty payments from us. In addition, we may be unaware of pending third-party patent applications that relate to our technology and our competitors and others may have patents or may in the future obtain patents and may claim that use of our products infringes these patents. Our competitors and others may now, and in the future, have significantly larger and more mature patent portfolios than we currently have. In addition, future litigation may

We are aware of a third party, Genomic Health, Inc., that has issued patents and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions that claim methods of using certain genes that are included in Prosigna, which we manufacture for Veracyte. We believe that our manufacture of Prosigna does not infringe any valid issued claim. We could incur substantial costs and divert the attention of our management and technical personnel in defending against any of these claims. Any adverse ruling or perception of an adverse ruling in defending ourselves against these claims could have an adverse impact on our stock price, which may be disproportionate to the actual impact of the ruling itself. Parties making claims against us may be able to obtain injunctive or other relief, which could block our ability to develop, commercialize and sell products, and could result in the award of substantial damages against us. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may be required to pay damages and obtain one or more licenses from third parties, or be prohibited from selling certain products. We may not be able to obtain these licenses at a reasonable cost, if at all. We could therefore incur substantial costs related to royalty payments for licenses obtained from third parties, which could negatively affect our gross margins. In addition, we could encounter delays in product introductions while we attempt to develop alternative methods or products to avoid infringing third-party patents or proprietary rights. Defense of any lawsuit or failure to obtain any of these licenses on

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

In addition, our agreements with some of our suppliers, distributors, customers, collaborators and other entities with whom we do business require us to defend or indemnify these parties to the extent they become involved in infringement claims against us, including the claims described above. We could also voluntarily agree to defend or indemnify third parties in instances where we are not obligated to do so if we determine it would be important to our business relationships. If we are required or agree to defend or indemnify any of these third parties in connection with any infringement claims, we could incur significant costs and expenses that could adversely affect our business, operating results, or financial condition.

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or other life sciences companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, we or our employees may be subject to claims that these employees or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. A loss of key research personnel work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize certain potential products, which could severely harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Our products contain software tools licensed by third-party authors under “open source” licenses. Use and distribution of open source software may entail greater risks than use of third-party commercial software, as open source licensors generally do not provide warranties or other contractual protections regarding infringement claims or the quality of the code. Some open source licenses contain requirements that we make available source code for modifications or derivative works we create based upon the type of open source software we use. If we combine our proprietary software with open source software in a certain manner, we could, under certain open source licenses, be required to release the source code of our proprietary software to the public. This would allow our competitors to create similar products with less development effort and time and ultimately could result in a loss of product sales.

Although we monitor our use of open source software to avoid subjecting our products to conditions we do not intend, the terms of many open source licenses have not been interpreted by U.S. courts, and there is a risk that these licenses could be construed in a way that could impose unanticipated conditions or restrictions on our ability to commercialize our products. Moreover, we cannot assure investors that our processes for controlling our use of open source software in our products will be effective. If we are held to have breached the terms of an open source software license, we could be required to seek licenses

We use software licensed from third parties in our products. In the future, this software may not be available to us on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Any loss of the right to use any of this software could result in delays in the production of our products until equivalent technology is either developed by us, or, if available, is identified, obtained and integrated, which could harm our business. In addition, any errors or defects in third-party software, or other third-party software failures, could result in errors, defects or cause our products to fail, which could harm our business and be costly to correct. Many of these providers attempt to impose limitations on their liability for such errors, defects or failures, and if enforceable, we may have additional liability to our customers or third-party providers that could harm our reputation and increase our operating costs.

We will need to maintain our relationships with third-party software providers and to obtain software from such providers that does not contain any errors or defects. Any failure to do so could adversely impact our ability to deliver reliable products to our customers and could harm our results of operations.

The stock market in general, and market prices for the securities of life sciences companies like ours in particular, have from time to time experienced volatility that often has been unrelated to the operating performance of the underlying companies. These broad market and industry fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance. In several recent situations where the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have instituted securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If any of our stockholders were to bring a lawsuit against us, the defense and disposition of the lawsuit could be costly and divert the time and attention of our management and harm our operating results and negatively impact the trading price of our common stock.

Our stock price could decline as a result of sales of a large number of shares of our common stock or the perception that these sales could occur, including by our officers, directors and their respective affiliates. These sales, or the possibility that these sales may occur, also might make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate.

We register the offer and sale of all shares of common stock that we may issue under our equity compensation plans. In addition, in the future, we may issue additional shares of common stock or other equity or debt securities convertible into common stock in connection with a financing, acquisition, litigation settlement, employee arrangements or otherwise. For example, in March 2020, we sold $230 million aggregate principal amount of 2.625% Convertible Senior Notes due 2025 in a private placement to qualified institutional buyers for net proceeds of $222.6 million and in October 2020, we sold an aggregate of 5,750,000 shares of common stock in an underwritten public offering for net proceeds of $215.8 million. Any such future issuance could result in substantial dilution to our existing stockholders and could cause our stock price to decline.

We have broad discretion over the use of proceeds to us from our March 2020 convertible notes offering and October 2020 underwritten public offering and investors will be relying solely on the judgment of our board of directors and management regarding the application of these proceeds. Our use of the proceeds may not improve our operating results or increase the value of the securities offered pursuant to the foregoing fundraising transactions.

In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which generally prohibits a Delaware corporation from engaging in any of a broad range of business combinations with any “interested” stockholder for a period of three years following the date on which the stockholder became an “interested” stockholder. Likewise, because our principal executive offices are located in Washington, the anti-takeover provisions of the Washington Business Corporation Act may apply to us under certain circumstances now or in the future. These provisions prohibit a “target corporation” from engaging in any of a broad range of business combinations with any stockholder constituting an “acquiring person” for a period of five years following the date on which the stockholder became an “acquiring person.”

As a public company, we incur and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and rules subsequently implemented by the SEC and The Nasdaq Global Market impose numerous requirements on public companies, including requiring changes in corporate governance practices. Also, the Exchange Act requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and operating results. Our management and other personnel must devote a substantial amount of time to compliance with these laws and regulations. These burdens may increase as new legislation is passed and implemented, including any new requirements that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 may impose on

Rules implemented by the SEC pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act require, among other things, that we assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting annually and assess the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures quarterly. In particular, Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404, requires us to perform system and process evaluation and testing of our internal control over financial reporting to allow management to report on, and our independent registered public accounting firm to attest to, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Our compliance with applicable provisions of Section 404 requires that we incur substantial accounting expense and expend significant management time on compliance-related issues as we implement additional corporate governance practices and comply with reporting requirements. For example, management concluded that our internal controls over financial reporting were not effective as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, resulting in extensive remediation efforts during 20192020 and 2020,2019, including increased staffing and investments in additional technology and other expenses. While we have since remediated the material weakness, maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting will continue to require significant management attention and the incurrence of additional expense.

Furthermore, investor perceptions of our company may suffer as a result of material weakness findings in our internal controls, and this could cause a decline in the market price of our stock. Irrespective of compliance with Section 404, any failure of our internal control over financial reporting could have a material adverse effect on our stated operating results and harm our reputation. If we are unable to avoid future material weaknesses, our operations, financial reporting, or financial results could be harmed, and any such material weakness findings could result in an adverse opinion on our internal control over financial reporting from our independent registered public accounting firm.

None.

Our leased properties include fourfive long-term operating lease agreements for approximately 134,000162,322 square feet of space used for general office, laboratory, manufacturing, operations, and research and development purposes in the greater Seattle, Washington area. The long-term operating leases in the greater Seattle, Washington area expire beginning in 2026 through 20302032 and include options to renew at the then fair market rental for each of the facilities. The lease agreements contain rent abatement periods, scheduled rent increases and provide for tenant improvement allowances.

Our landlords hold security deposits of approximately $2.0$1.4 million. We believe that our existing facilities are adequate to meet our business requirements for the near-term and that additional space will be available on commercially reasonable terms, if required.

On May 6, 2021, 10x Genomics, Inc. and Prognosys Biosciences, Inc. (“Prognosys”), or “Prognosys”, filed a complaint, and on May 19, 2021, an amended complaint, and on May 4, 2022, a second amended complaint, against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The amended complaint alleges that certain of our products, services and components including those sold by us for use in connection with our GeoMx DSP system (the “Identified GeoMx Products”), infringe seven patents owned by Prognosys: (a) U.S. Patent No. 10,472,669, “Spatially encoded biological assays”,assays,” (b) U.S. Patent No. 10,662,467,10,961,566, “Spatially encoded biological assays,” (c) U.S. Patent No. 10,961,566,10,983,113, “Spatially encoded biological assays,”(d) U.S. Patent No. 10,983,133,“Spatially10,996,219, “Spatially encoded biological assays,” (e) U.S. Patent No. 10,966,219,11,001,878, “Spatially encoded biological assays,” (f) U.S. Patent No. 11,001,878,11,008,607, “Spatially encoded biological assays,” and (g) U.S. Patent No. 11,008,607, “Spatially encoded11,293,917, “Systems for analyzing target biological assays”molecules via sample imaging and delivery of probes to substrate well” (the “Asserted Prognosys Patents”). The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief and unspecified damages (including treble damages and attorneys’ fees) in relation to our making, using, selling, offering to sell, exporting and/or importing in the United States the Identified GeoMx Products, as well as the alleged infringement by others of the Asserted Prognosys Patents through their use of the Identified GeoMx Products. We have evaluated the plaintiffs’ claims and do not believe that our activities infringe any patent rights held by the plaintiffs. On November 17, 2021, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims of pre-suit indirect infringement and willful infringement with leave to amend the complaint. Discovery is in progress. A claim construction hearing was held on February 17, 2023. A trial is scheduled for JuneNovember 2023. We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves in this ongoing litigation.

Other than the pending litigations with 10x Genomics and its co-plaintiffs, we are not engaged in any material legal proceedings. From time to time, we may become involved in litigation relating to claims arising from the ordinary course of business. Other than the pending litigations with 10x Genomics and its co-plaintiffs, we believe that there are no claims or actions pending against us currently, the ultimate disposition of which would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Not applicable.

As of February 22, 2022,21, 2023, there were approximately 1918 holders of record of our common stock. The actual number of stockholders is greater than this number of record holders and includes stockholders who are beneficial owners but whose shares are held in street name by brokers and other nominees.

The following graph compares the performance of our common stock for the periods indicated with the performance of the Nasdaq Composite Index the Nasdaq Medical Equipment Index and the Nasdaq Biotechnology TR Index. This graph assumes an investment of $100 on December 31, 20162017 in each of our common stock, the Nasdaq Composite Index, the Nasdaq Medical Equipment Index and the Nasdaq Biotechnology TR Index, and assumes reinvestment of dividends, if any. We have decided to change from the Nasdaq Medical Equipment Index to the Nasdaq Biotechnology TR Index as management believes the Nasdaq Biotechnology TR Index represents a broader universe of companies of different sizes and stages of development than the Nasdaq Medical Equipment Index. Beginning with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, we will only present the cumulative total return of the Nasdaq Composite Index and the Nasdaq Biotechnology TR Index. The stock price performance shown on the graph below is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.

The following table summarizes information about our equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2021.2022. All outstanding awards relate to our common stock.