Cases

In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation

Court: United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Case Number: 3:18-cv-05704-RSL
Judge: Hon. Robert S. Lasnik
Class Period: 7/21/16 - 2/15/2018
Case Contacts: Jonathan D. Uslaner, Michael D. Blatchley, Lauren M. Cruz

This is a securities fraud class action filed on behalf of all purchasers of Impinj, Inc. (“Impinj” or the “Company”) common stock between July 21, 2016 and February 15, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Impinj, a manufacturer of radio-frequency identification products used to manage inventory, and three of the Company’s senior executives.

The case, which was commenced by Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge (“Baton Rouge”) on October 2, 2018, concerns Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding the capabilities of and demand for Impinj’s product platform (“Platform”).  The Complaint alleges Defendants falsely told investors that the Company’s Platform had the ability to accurately locate tagged items.  The Complaint alleges that Defendants also falsely claimed that increased demand for the Platform was fueling its record revenue growth.  According to the Complaint, the Platform suffered from poor location accuracy and demand for the Platform was declining during the Class Period.  In response to Defendants’ statements, the price of Impinj’s shares traded at artificially-inflated levels, reaching a high of over $59 per share during the Class Period.  When the truth emerged in a series of partial disclosures, the price declined to $11 per share.

On January 14, 2019, the Court appointed Baton Rouge as Lead Plaintiff for the Class and Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP as Lead Counsel. 

On February 13, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed its consolidated class action complaint provisionally under seal.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, and Plaintiffs opposed their motion. The Court has not yet ruled on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Other Cases of Interest

  • Qualcomm, Inc.
    Southern District of California Salvatore J. Graziano, Jonathan D. Uslaner, Richard D. Gluck, Rebecca E. Boon, Kyle Panton, Lauren M. Cruz
  • Oracle Corporation
    Northern District of California John Rizio-Hamilton, Mark Lebovitch, Jonathan D. Uslaner, Abe Alexander, Julia Tebor
  • Impinj, Inc.
    Western District of Washington Jonathan D. Uslaner, Michael D. Blatchley, Lauren M. Cruz
  • CenturyLink
    District of Minnesota Michael D. Blatchley, Michael Mathai
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    Northern District of California John C. Browne, Jeroen van Kwawegen, Jonathan D. Uslaner, Michael Mathai, Lauren M. Cruz
  • Restoration Hardware, Inc.
    Northern District of California Jonathan D. Uslaner
  • Cardinal Health, Inc.
    Southern District of New York Avi Josefson, Michael D. Blatchley, Scott R. Foglietta
  • Venator Materials PLC
    Southern District of New York Avi Josefson, Michael D. Blatchley, Scott R. Foglietta
  • Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.
    District of Massachusetts Avi Josefson, Hannah Ross, Michael D. Blatchley, Scott R. Foglietta