What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2026-02-12 compared with 2025-02-18 · 61 added, 59 removed, 15 unchanged (89% of the section changed)

2 unchanged sentences

In addition, from time to time we may bring claims or initiate lawsuits against various third parties with respect to matters arising out of the ordinary course of our business, including commercial and employment related matters.

Litigation and Settlement with Abbott

From June 2021 through December 2024, we and certain Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.

(“Abbott”) entities served patent infringement complaints against each other in multiple jurisdictions against certain continuous glucose monitoring products of each company.

In June 2021, we initiated patent infringement litigation against Abbott in the United States (U.S.D.C., Western District of Texas) and Germany (National Court (“N.C.”) in Mannheim).

In May 2023, we filed additional patent infringement actions in Germany (N.C.

In July and August 2023, we initiated patent infringement litigation in the United Patent Court (“UPC”) (Paris & Munich) and in Spain (Commercial Courts of Barcelona).

In October and November 2023, we initiated patent infringement litigation in Germany (N.C.

in Munich) and in the UPC (Paris & Munich).

In January 2024, we initiated patent infringement litigation in Germany (N.C.

In July 2021, one day after we initiated litigation in the U.S.D.C., Western District of Texas, Abbott initiated patent infringement litigation against Dexcom in the United States (U.S.D.C., Delaware (“D1”)).

Shortly thereafter, Abbott filed additional patent infringement litigation actions in the United Kingdom (Business and Property Courts of England and Wales) and Germany (N.C.

in Mannheim and Dusseldorf).

In response to the lawsuits initiated by Abbott in the United Kingdom, Dexcom also filed patent infringement counterclaims in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales.

Three trials on liability were conducted in the United Kingdom.

On October 18, 2023 and June 28, 2024, judgment was handed down in favor of Dexcom, finding the Abbott patents to be invalid and not infringed.

On January 15, 2024, judgment was handed down invalidating both Abbott and Dexcom’s patents.

In December 2021, Abbott filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Dexcom in the United States (U.S.D.C., District of Delaware) alleging that Dexcom breached the parties’ Settlement and License Agreement dated July 2, 2014 (“SLA”).

The U.S.D.C., District of Delaware consolidated Abbott’s breach of contract lawsuit with Dexcom’s patent infringement lawsuit which had been transferred from the U.S.D.C., Western District of Texas (“D3”).

Dexcom asserted counterclaims that Abbott also breached the SLA.

A jury trial on Abbott’s breach of contract claims commenced on July 10, 2023.

On July 14, 2023, the jury verdict determined that Abbott was not licensed to thirteen claims of certain Dexcom patents and that Abbott was licensed to five claims.

In April 2022, Abbott initiated the inter partes review (“IPR”) process on the asserted claims of Dexcom’s patents in D3.

Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”) denied institution of one of Dexcom’s patents and instituted IPR on the other four.

Ultimately, in November 2023, the PTO issued its Final Written Decision, upholding claims of two Dexcom patents to be patentable, which cover factory calibration and certain alarms and alerts, and two to be unpatentable, which cover certain sensor code and sensor configurations.

In February 2023, Abbott filed patent infringement litigation against us in Germany (N.C.

in Hamburg and Munich).

In March 2023, Abbott filed a patent infringement litigation in the United States (U.S.D.C., Delaware (“D4”)) and we filed counterclaims for patent infringement in that action in June 2023.

In June 2023, Abbott filed patent infringement litigation actions in the United Kingdom (Business and Property Courts of England and Wales).

In response to the lawsuits initiated by Abbott in the United Kingdom, Dexcom also filed patent infringement counterclaims in that jurisdiction.

Abbott’s patent infringement trial, “D1”, against Dexcom commenced in the U.S.D.C., District of Delaware in March 2024.

In the lead up to trial, the U.S.D.C., District of Delaware invalidated one of Abbott’s patents on factory calibration and Abbott dropped four other patents from the litigation.

The claims litigated were isolated to the inserter mechanism and the wearable seal and mount of Dexcom’s G6.

On March 22, 2024, a jury returned a mixed verdict.

The jury found that Dexcom infringes one patent, that Dexcom did not infringe a second patent, and that Dexcom also did not infringe a third patent, which the jury also found invalid.

The jury found that any infringement was not willful.

It could not reach unanimity as to a fourth patent.

No determination of damages was made or awarded.

Commencing in January 2024, patent infringement hearings between Abbott and Dexcom were scheduled to take place in Germany wherein each sought damages and injunctive relief against the other.

All but one of Abbott’s offensive hearings were either stayed or cancelled entirely due to parallel invalidity proceedings and nullity decisions.

After a February 28, 2024 hearing in Munich wherein Abbott asserted patent infringement claims against Dexcom, Dexcom received a favorable non-infringement decision.

On July 24, 2024, Dexcom received a decision from the Munich court related to the July 3, 2024 hearing, staying our offensive infringement proceedings pending the outcome of an opposition proceeding.

On July 31, 2024, Dexcom received a decision from the Munich courts related to hearings in April 2024, dismissing our claims for infringement.

On November 6, 2024, Dexcom received a favorable decision from the Munich District Court, finding Abbott infringes Dexcom’s patent and granting an injunction regarding Abbott’s LibrLinkUp application in Germany.

Under the Settlement Agreement described below, Abbott obtained a license to such patent and the injunction no longer applies.

In July 2024, after hearings in May and June in the Paris and Munich divisions of the UPC, each division issued a decision revoking our patents asserted against Abbott.

On December 20, 2024, Dexcom and Abbott entered into a settlement and patent cross license agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to resolve all outstanding patent litigation between the parties (the “Litigation”).

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Dexcom granted Abbott and its affiliates, and Abbott and its affiliates granted Dexcom and its affiliates, a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, fully paid-up license to certain patents and patent applications relating to analyte sensing, including to all the patents asserted in the Litigation.

The Settlement Agreement does not obligate Dexcom or Abbott to pay any royalties or any other form of financial compensation.

As part of the Settlement Agreement, each party, on behalf of itself and its affiliates, has also (i) entered into a covenant not to sue until December 20, 2034;

and (ii) agreed on behalf of themselves and their affiliates to refrain from challenging the patents and patent applications licensed under the Settlement Agreement for periods of time which vary depending on the relevant patents or patent applications.

The description of the Settlement Agreement contained herein is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Settlement Agreement, a copy of which is filed as Exhibit 10.16 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Securities Class Action Litigation

Securities Class Actions

Between August 21 and October 9, 2024, three substantially similar putative class action complaints were filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

On December 13, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiff court and consolidated the three actions (now captioned In Re:

On December 13, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiff and consolidated the three actions (now captioned In re Dexcom, Inc.

Class Action Securities Litigation, Lead Case No.:

1 unchanged sentence

On January 27, 2025, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act against us and certain of our current and former executive officers for allegedly making false and misleading statements between April 28, 2023 and July 25, 2024, with respect to our expected revenue for fiscal 2024 and ability to capitalize on our growth potential.

Our deadline to respond to the consolidated complaint is March 13, 2025.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act against us and certain of our current and former executive officers for allegedly making false and misleading statements between April 28, 2023 and July 25, 2024, with respect to our expected revenue for fiscal 2024 and ability to capitalize on our growth potential.

On March 13, 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On May 14, 2025, the court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

On May 28, 2025, lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint.

On June 11, 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.

On September 9, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.

On October 7, 2025, defendants answered the amended consolidated complaint.

On October 10, 2025, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the two surviving challenged statements.

On January 7, 2026, the court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend.

On February 6, 2026, lead plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated complaint.

Defendants’ deadline to respond to the second amended consolidated complaint is February 20, 2026.

On October 27, 2025, a putative class action complaint was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (captioned Prime v.

Dexcom, Inc., et al, Case No.:

1:25-cv-08912).

The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act against us and certain of our executive officers for allegedly making false and misleading statements between July 26, 2024 and September 17, 2025, with respect to the accuracy, reliability, and functionality of our G7 device, as well as our enhancements to and manufacturing of the device.

A lead plaintiff has been appointed and must file an amended complaint no later than April 10, 2026.

Our deadline to respond to the amended complaint is June 9, 2026.

Derivative Actions

Between September 13 and October 16, 2024, two putative stockholders filed derivative lawsuits against us and certain of our current and former executive officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

The derivative complaints allege factual allegations largely tracking allegations made in the Securities Class Action Litigation and seek, among other things, damages and restitution to be paid to the Company by the individual defendants, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

On December 16, 2024, the court issued an order (i) consolidating the derivative actions, (ii) appointing lead counsel in the consolidated action (captioned In Re:

Between September 13 and April 14, 2025, three putative stockholders filed derivative lawsuits against us and certain of our current and former executive officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

The derivative complaints allege factual allegations largely tracking allegations made in the In re Dexcom, Inc.

Securities Class Action Litigation and seek, among other things, damages and restitution to be paid to the Company by the individual defendants, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

These actions have been consolidated (captioned In Re:

Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No.:

24-cv-1645-RSH-VET), and (iii) staying the consolidated action until the court’s resolution of any motions to dismiss in the Securities Class Action Litigation.

24-cv-1645-RSH-VET), and are currently stayed pending a resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss in the In re Dexcom, Inc.

Securities Class Action Litigation.

On September 25, 2025, an additional derivative lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our current and former executive officers and directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The allegations largely track those made in the In re Dexcom, Inc.

Securities Class Action Litigation and seek, among other things, damages and restitution to be paid to the Company by the individual defendants, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

This action This action is currently stayed pending a resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss in the In re Dexcom, Inc.

Securities Class Action Litigation.

G6 and G7 Class Action Litigation

Between September 29, 2025, and January 8, 2026, various plaintiffs, purported users of G6 or G7 devices, filed six overlapping putative class action complaints against us.

Four of the complaints originally were filed and are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Levens, et al.

Dexcom, Inc., No.

3:25-cv-02565-BJC-BLM;

Dexcom, Inc., No.

3:25-cv-02845-BJC-BLM;

and Dalora v.

Dexcom, Inc., No.

3:25-cv-03210-BJC-BLM;

Dickinson, et al.

Dexcom, Inc., No.

3:26-cv-00102-BJC-BLM);

one of the complaints originally was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California, and subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Grisoli, et al.

Dexcom, Inc., No.

3:25-cv-03488-BJC-BLM);

and one of the complaints was filed and is pending in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California (Chatelain v.

Dexcom, Inc., No.

25STCV30722).

Plaintiffs in all six actions allege they overpaid for G6 and/or G7 devices or components that were worth less than the purchase price because, among other reasons, G6 and/or G7 devices or components they purchased allegedly were adulterated or misbranded under federal law;

G6 and/or G7 devices or components they purchased allegedly failed to perform as advertised;

and because we allegedly misled patients and providers about the safety, accuracy, efficacy, and reliability of G6 and/or G7 devices or components.

Plaintiffs in each action assert various state law consumer protection, express and implied warranty, common law, and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims, and seek, among other things, damages for economic losses, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes and state-specific subclasses of individuals.

The five cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California have been deemed related cases and have been assigned to a single judge.

On December 30, 2025, and January 5, 2026, plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the four federal court cases, to appoint interim class counsel, and to establish a briefing schedule on competing motions to appoint interim class counsel.

The Court has stayed all deadlines to respond to the complaints in four of the federal court actions ( Levens , Estravit , Dalora , and Grisoli ) pending the filing of a consolidated complaint.

Our deadline to respond to the complaint in Dickinson currently is March 23, 2026.

In the putative class action pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, our initial status conference is scheduled for February 23, 2026.

The case is stayed until at least the February 23, 2026, status conference.

We intend to vigorously defend against such claims;

5 unchanged sentences

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-K

Item 3. Legal Proceedings