ILLUMINA, INC.

We are involved in various lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of business, including actions with respect to intellectual property, employment, and contractual matters. In connection with these matters, we assess, on a regular basis, the probability and range of possible loss based on the developments in these matters. A liability is recorded in the condensed consolidated financial statements if it is believed to be probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable and unfavorable resolutions could occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. We regularly review outstanding legal matters to determine the adequacy of the liabilities accrued and related disclosures in consideration of many factors, which include, but are not limited to, past history, scientific and other evidence, and the specifics and status of each matter. We may change our estimates if our assessment of the various factors changes and the amount of ultimate loss may differ from our estimates, resulting in a material effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and/or cash flows.

Shareholder Derivative Complaints

On October 17, 2023, a stockholder derivative and class action complaint captioned Icahn Partners LP, et al. v. deSouza, et al., purportedly brought on behalf of Illumina and public holders of Illumina’s common stock, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain current and former directors (including our former Chief Executive Officer). We are named as a nominal defendant in the complaint. The lawsuit alleges the named directors breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly causing Illumina to unlawfully close the GRAIL acquisition, concealing material facts related to the GRAIL acquisition and making inadequate disclosures. Before the filing of the complaint, the purported stockholders did not make a demand that our Board of Directors pursue the claims asserted therein. The complaint seeks damages, costs and expenses, including attorney fees, the certification and consolidation of a putative class, the issuance of amended disclosures, the removal of conflicted directors and declaratory and other equitable relief. On November 1, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On February 26, 2024, a stockholder derivative complaint captioned City of Omaha Police and Firefighters Retirement System v. deSouza, et al., purportedly brought on behalf of Illumina, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain current and former directors. On April 16, 2024, a stockholder derivative complaint captioned City of Roseville General Employees Retirement System, et al. v. deSouza, et al., purportedly brought on behalf of Illumina, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain current and former directors and officers. On March 26, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit filed by City of Omaha Police and Firefighters Retirement System. On May 16, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit filed by City of Roseville General Employees Retirement System, et al.

On December 23, 2024, a stockholder derivative complaint captioned The Pavers and Road Builders Benefit Funds v. deSouza, et al., purportedly brought on behalf of Illumina, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain current and former directors and officers. Like the complaints described above, the lawsuits allege the named directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly causing Illumina to unlawfully close the GRAIL acquisition. Before the filing of the complaint, the purported stockholder did not make a demand that our Board of Directors pursue the claim asserted therein. The complaint seeks damages against the individual defendants and other equitable relief. On January 21, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit filed by The Pavers and Road Builders Benefit Funds.

On March 27, 2025, the parties in the Icahn Partners LP, et al. v. deSouza, et al., City of Omaha Police and Firefighters Retirement System v. deSouza, et al., City of Roseville General Employees Retirement System, et al. v. deSouza, et al. and The Pavers and Road Builders Benefit Funds v. deSouza, et al. Delaware shareholder derivative actions filed a stipulation to consolidate those actions. On April 11, 2025, the parties to the Icahn Partners LP, et al. v. deSouza, et al. action informed the court that they had agreed to a settlement in principle of that action involving a release of claims and no payment by any party. On April 17, 2025, the court held a teleconference on the consolidated action, during which it directed the parties to (i) refile the consolidation stipulation once the Icahn Partners LP, et al. v. deSouza, et al. settlement was finalized and (ii) proceed with the briefing on the motion to dismiss the operative complaint in the consolidated action, which is the complaint filed in The Pavers and Road Builders Benefit Funds v. deSouza, et al.

On June 2, 2025, (i) Alex Aravanis filed his opening brief in support of his motion to dismiss, (ii) Francis deSouza, John W. Thompson, Frances Arnold, Caroline Dorsa, Robert Epstein, Scott Gottlieb, Gary Guthart, Philip Schiller and Susan Siegel (Director Defendants) filed their opening brief in support of their motion to dismiss and (iii) Illumina filed a joinder to the Director Defendants’ motion. On July 17, 2025, the court granted a stipulation filed by the parties giving plaintiffs until August 8, 2025, to file an amended complaint. On August 8, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a stipulation to dismiss without prejudice all claims against Alex Aravanis, and the court granted the stipulation the same day. In a settlement agreement dated August 21, 2025, the parties in Icahn Partners LP, et al. v. deSouza, et al. agreed that the matter would be dismissed with a full release of claims and no payment by any party. On September 19, 2025, the parties in Icahn Partners LP, et al. v. deSouza, et al. filed a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal in that case. On November 3, 2025, the court held a teleconference with the parties in the Icahn Partners LP, et al. v. deSouza, et al., City of Omaha Police and Firefighters Retirement System v. deSouza, et al., City of Roseville General Employees Retirement System, et al. v. deSouza, et al. and The Pavers and Road Builders Benefit Funds v. deSouza, et al. actions and asked them to submit supplemental authority in support of dismissal of the Icahn Partners LP, et al. v. deSouza, et al. action. The parties filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of dismissal on December 2, 2025. On February 20, 2026, the court ordered that notice of the proposed settlement be given to stockholders before dismissal. On April 22, 2026, the parties filed a proposed scheduling order and notice for a hearing on the dismissal. On April 28, 2026, the court denied the proposed scheduling order on procedural grounds and directed the parties submit a revised proposed order conforming to Court of Chancery Rules 23(f)(3)(D)(iv) and 23.1(d)(3)(D)(iii) by providing a summary of the claims, issues, defenses, and relief sought in the Icahn action.

On October 3, 2025, the Director Defendants filed their opening brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the consolidated Pavers action. Illumina filed a joinder to the opening brief. Plaintiffs filed their answering brief on November 20, 2025, and the Director Defendants filed their reply brief on December 19, 2025. Illumina filed a joinder to the reply brief. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on February 13, 2026.

In light of the fact that these lawsuits are in an early stage, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the suits. We deny the allegations in the complaints and intend to vigorously defend the litigations.

On May 1, 2024, stockholder Michael Warner sent a litigation demand to our Board of Directors requesting that a civil action for monetary damages be brought by the Board of Directors on behalf of Illumina against officers and directors involved with the GRAIL acquisition. On July 30, 2024, the Board unanimously determined that it was in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders to defer a final decision on the demand given, among other things, the pending stockholder lawsuits described herein and the similarity of issues raised in the demand and those lawsuits. By letter dated October 13, 2025, Mr. Warner requested that the Board reconsider his demand in light of developments in the various shareholder cases related to the acquisition of GRAIL. On February 4, 2026, the Board unanimously determined that it was in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders to continue to defer a final decision on the demand. Our Board will monitor the stockholder lawsuits and revisit the demand as warranted as the lawsuits progress.

On August 21, 2024, an additional stockholder, Jane Davidson, sent a litigation demand to our Board of Directors requesting that a civil action for breaches of fiduciary duty, indemnification, contribution and other appropriate claims be brought by the Board of Directors on behalf of Illumina against officers and directors involved with the GRAIL acquisition. On October 29, 2024, the Board unanimously determined that it was in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders to defer a final decision on the demand given, among other things, the pending stockholder lawsuits described herein and the similarity of issues raised in the demand and those lawsuits. Our Board will monitor the stockholder lawsuits and revisit the demand as warranted as the lawsuits progress.

Securities Class Actions

Federal Securities Class Actions. On November 11, 2023, the first ofthree securities class action complaints was filed against Illumina and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The first-filed case is captioned Kangas v. Illumina, Inc. et al., the second-filed case is captioned Roy v. Illumina, Inc. et al., and the third-filed case is captioned Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension & Relief Fund v. Illumina, Inc. et al. (collectively, the Actions). The complaints generally allege, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts relating to Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On January 9, 2024, four movants filed motions to consolidate the Actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff (Lead Plaintiff Motions). On April 11, 2024, the Court issued an order consolidating the Actions into a single action (captioned in re Illumina, Inc. Securities Litigation No. 23-cv-2082-LL-MMP), and appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, UI BVK Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, and ACATIS Investment Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs (the Lead Plaintiffs). On June 21, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint. The complaint alleges that Illumina and GRAIL and certain of their current and former directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL. On September 13, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint. On November 12, 2024, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. On December 20, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. The defendants’ final reply brief was filed on February 3, 2025. On September 26, 2025, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by October 27, 2025. On October 27, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint. On December 11, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. On February 4, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Company filed its reply on March 6, 2026. No hearing date has been set.

State Securities Class Actions. On February 2, 2024, the first oftwo additional securities class actions was filed against Illumina, certain of its officers and directors, and several other individuals and entities in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, captioned Loren Scott Mar v. Illumina, et al. and Scott Zerzanek v. Illumina, Inc. et al. Both complaints generally allege, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts in the November 2020 and February 2021 registration statements and prospectus relating to Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On March 29, 2024, the parties to the actions filed a Joint Stipulation to Consolidate the actions and to appoint co-lead counsel for plaintiffs, which the Court granted on April 5, 2024. On August 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint. On February 28, 2025, the defendants filed demurrers seeking dismissal of the litigation. On April 30, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their oppositions to the demurrers, and defendants filed their reply briefs on May 30, 2025. On September 3, 2025, the Court overruled Illumina’s demurrer. On September 16, 2025, Illumina filed its answer to the consolidated complaint denying the allegations. On October 28, 2025, the Company filed a writ with the California Court of Appeals seeking interlocutory appellate review of the Court’s order overruling Illumina’s demurrer. On October 31, 2025, the Court of Appeals denied the writ. On January 26, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On March 12, 2026, the Company filed its opposition. Plaintiffs filed their reply on April 27, 2026, and a hearing is scheduled for May 15, 2026. On March 27, 2026, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for June 26, 2026.

In light of the fact that the lawsuits are in an early stage, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the suits. We deny the allegations in the complaints and intend to vigorously defend the litigation.