The legal battle between Harvard and 10x Genomics, and Vizgen Inc. came to a halt the other day, February 6, 2025, when the parties notified Judge Matthew F. Kennelly they had reached a settlement. This comes after three days of intense trial in the District of Delaware. Harvard and 10x filed suit against Vizgen back in April of 2022 alleging it was infringing on a series of Harvard’s patents dedicated to gene-mapping technologies. Vizgen counter-claimed that Harvard breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violated the warranties it made in the Vizgen licensing agreement, and negligently misrepresented those warranties to induce Vizgen to enter the agreement. Vizgen also claimed that 10x tortiously interfered with its business relationships, the parties violated antitrust statutes, and sough a declaratory judgment declaring the patents invalid. The original licensing deal was with ReadCoor, a company acquired by 10x that was co-founded by Harvard Medical School professor and named inventor on the patents-in-suit, George Church.

Interestingly, Vizgen was co-founded by another Harvard professor—Dr. Xiaowei Zhuang—to commercialize technology she developed and patented on Harvard’s behalf. In September 2019, Harvard granted Vizgen an exclusive license to an assortment of patents after allegedly representing the Vizgen license “is not in conflict with any existing intellectual property agreement with a Third Party under which Harvard is bound.”          

The dispute arose after two separate developments. First, in 2020 ReadCoor—as a condition of 10x’s acquisition—convinced Harvard to expand its licensing field, which 10x alleged encapsulates the Vizgen technology. Then, between late 2021 and April 2022, Harvard’s patents-in-suit were issued. At that point, Vizgen had already launched its MERSCOPE Platform that could perform high-resolution in situ spatial genomics. This technology allows scientists to map samples of tissue at a per-cell level without having to remove the cells from the tissue sample. In plaintiffs’ words, this is akin to “a kind of Google Earth” to better understand how independent cells function in conjunction with their location.

Vizgen’s antitrust counterclaims were dismissed back in January 2025. They had alleged Harvard and 10x, through ReadCoor, conspired to manipulate the various licensing schemes to ensure 10x maintained its market dominance. Vizgen alleged this was all done in violation of the $19 million in National Institute of Health grants that Church received which required the parties to pursue open and non-exclusive licensing agreements. While allowing the claims at the motion to dismiss stage, Judge Kennelly granted Harvard and 10x’s summary judgment motion after finding neither 10x, nor ReadCoor were involved in the representations Harvard made to Vizgen in the licensing agreement. Without a co-conspirator, there can be no conspiracy. Though, Judge Kennelly left in certain unfair trade practice and tortious interference claims for trial.

While this matter may have settled, 10x is still pursuing potential infringers. 10x is in current litigation with NanoString over the same patents and is proceeding through a separate appeal after winning $31 million in a late 2024 jury verdict against NanoString on related genomic technology. 10x is also scheduled for a March 2025 trial against Parse Biosciences, Inc. There, Parse is alleged to have infringed a series of patents related to 10x’s “single-cell products” which relate to gene sequencing and CRISPR technology.

If 10x’s litigation activity is any metric, the field of gene therapy is one to watch. Accordingly, it’s never been more imperative to protect your intellectual property expeditiously and aggressively. These considerations include:

• Actively monitoring the competition in your industry to identify potential infringers;
• Assessing the viability of preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent infringement;
• Conducting diligence before launching new products for freedom to operate; and
• Proactively communicating with counsel to ensure expeditious enforcement of your IP and to avoid the landmines presented by the IP within the industry.